A key US Supreme Court justice indicated he wants to protect the
During arguments on Monday, Justice
“I share those concerns,” said Kavanaugh, who was appointed during Trump’s first term.
The court on Monday signaled that the 6-3 conservative majority is likely to side with the administration in overturning a 90-year-old precedent and allow Trump to fire potentially leaders of dozens of traditionally independent federal agencies. There were a few clues that the administration faces an uphill climb when it comes to firing members of the Federal Reserve without cause.
The justices won’t hear a separate case challenging Trump’s move to oust Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook
Read More:
Sauer acknowledged that the Supreme Court previously indicated that it considers the Fed unique in the context of allowing the president to fire members without cause. He told Kavanaugh that the government isn’t directly challenging a “for cause” removal shield that Congress put in place for the Fed. The Justice Department is arguing that courts can’t second-guess how the president wields that firing authority.
But several of the court’s liberal-leaning justices pressed Sauer on how carveouts would work under the administration’s sweeping claims in the FTC case that Congress can’t limit the president’s ability to control officials who exercise executive functions.
Kavanaugh said he also had “real doubts” about the administration’s stance that judges lack authority to reinstate wrongly fired officials. He said that would be an “end-run” around potential exceptions to a president’s firing power, such as for the Federal Reserve and certain specialty courts that deal with taxes and monetary claims against the US government.
Sauer replied that the Supreme Court had endorsed the idea that the harm of forcing an administration to take back an official rejected by the president outweighed that person’s interests.
Agency ‘Anomaly’
The Supreme Court has largely sided with the White House in firing fights this year, but
In October,
Former Fed officials
In the FTC case, the Justice Department has argued that the Supreme Court doesn’t need to reach the question of the Fed’s status. The government said in a written brief that it wasn’t conceding the constitutionality of the Fed’s “for cause” protection but if the justices were inclined to uphold it, “it would be an agency-specific ‘anomaly.’”
Lawyers for the fired FTC members have countered that if the Federal Reserve presented an “historical exception” to the president’s power to remove agency heads, there could be others “equally grounded in history, too,” including the trade commission.
The hearing came a day before the start of the Fed’s final policy meeting of the year, when officials are expected to lower interest rates for a third consecutive time. The Fed has faced intense pressure from Trump this year to drastically slash interest rates, often in the form of insults and scrutiny directed toward Chair
Powell this year has repeatedly emphasized the importance of Fed independence, while maintaining the central bank doesn’t engage in partisan considerations when setting policy. The Fed has said it will respect any court decision regarding Cook.
Cook has not missed a policy meeting this year and voted in favor of interest-rate cuts at each of the Fed’s two gatherings since Trump moved to fire her. Last month, she gave her first public speeches since the attempted ouster, addressing the
--With assistance from
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Elizabeth Wasserman, Christopher Condon
© 2025 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.