Questions about whether President
US District Judge
The emergency hearing on President Donald Trump’s move to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook wrapped Friday without a ruling. US District Judge Jia Cobb asked for a filing on Tuesday from Cook’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, and is also giving both sides a chance to file some additional arguments. Tyler Kendall reports on Bloomberg Television. Source: Bloomberg
The hearing capped weeks of criticism of the Fed by the
The judge focused in particular on Cook’s argument that being accused of wrongdoing and fired through a series of social media posts didn’t amount to proper due process under US law.
Cook lawyer
Lowell said that fraud allegations have become a “weapon of choice” for Trump as he seeks to remove officials whom he views as obstacles to his agenda. Trump’s motive, he argued, signaled he didn’t have the necessary cause to fire Cook.
Trump is not seeking a Fed governor who “has never committed an infraction in their life,” Lowell said, but one who “would lower the interest rate” to what the president “demanded.”
No Explanation
As part of her lawsuit, Cook suggested that an unintentional “clerical error” may have been behind the mortgage filling.
Roth denied that Trump is looking to remove Cook over policy disagreements. She was appointed by former President
Cook sued Trump on Thursday, arguing that his attempt to fire her was a power grab that could cause “irreparable harm” to the US economy. The president is seeking to remove her over claims by
At the hearing, the judge said she is “uncomfortable” with Cook’s argument that she was fired on a pretext. But she said she’s also uncomfortable with Trump explicitly saying he wanted a majority on the Fed’s board and then saying “find reasons to kick all these people off so I can get my people in.”
Cobb also signaled that she is grappling with whether she has authority at all to review the legitimacy of Trump’s stated reasons for firing Cook, or if he’s entitled to wide discretion when deciding to remove someone “for cause.”
The judge is not expected to issue a ruling before at least Tuesday, when Cook’s lawyers are due to file another legal brief addressing the judge’s questions on Friday and responding to the government’s arguments.
Next Steps
In a statement Tuesday, the Fed acknowledged Cook was seeking a court order clarifying whether she could continue serving in her role while the case proceeds. The Fed said it would abide by the court’s decision, and a spokesperson added the agency would defer any decision on her work status.
Read More:
Just before the hearing, the Justice Department said in a filing that courts should defer to Trump on whether he has sufficient “cause” to fire Cook. Her request for an order temporarily allowing her to remain employed should be denied, the government said. Cook is “highly unlikely to prevail on the merits” of her claim that Trump illegally fired her without cause, they argued.
“Removal for ‘cause’ is a capacious standard, and one Congress has vested in the discretion of the President,” the government said. “Even if it were subject to any judicial review — and over a century of caselaw suggests it is not — that review would have to be highly deferential, lest it intrude into the President’s constitutional authority over principal officers.”
A central claim of Cook’s lawsuit is that Trump violated her constitutional due process rights as well as the Federal Reserve Act by firing her without “cause,” a term that’s been defined to mean inefficiency; neglect of duty; and malfeasance, or wrongdoing, in office.
But the Justice Department argued that Cook was relying on an “artificially narrow interpretation” of what constitutes “cause” for her firing. In the hearing, Roth disputed Cook’s argument that she did not receive the necessary notice of the allegations against her because they were made in a social media post.
“You’re not suggesting what happened would satisfy due process requirements?” the judge asked Roth. He replied that he would.
Read More:
(Updates with additional arguments throughout.)
--With assistance from
To contact the reporters on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Sara Forden
© 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.