On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Trump v. Cook (No. 25A312) that Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook may remain in office pending litigation challenging her removal proceedings. By a 5–4 vote, the Court declined to stay a preliminary injunction preserving Cook’s position, concluding that the government had not demonstrated that extraordinary relief was warranted before the merits of the dispute could be fully litigated. Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion. 

As summarized in Dykema’s February 2026 edition, the dispute arose after President Trump attempted to remove Governor Cook from the Federal Reserve Board before the expiration of her statutory term, asserting that alleged mortgage fraud constituted statutory “cause” for removal. Cook challenged the action, arguing that the asserted grounds did not satisfy the governing statute and that the removal process failed to provide the procedural protections required by law. After the district court entered a preliminary injunction preserving Cook’s position on the Board, the government sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court.

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized the limited procedural posture of the case. The question before the Court was not whether the President ultimately possesses authority to remove the Governor or whether the asserted grounds constitute statutory cause. Rather, the Court considered only whether the injunction preserving the status quo should remain in place while those questions are resolved through ordinary litigation.

The majority concluded that it should. The Court reasoned that Congress’s decision to provide Federal Reserve Governors with statutory removal protections would have little practical value if an officer could be removed immediately without meaningful judicial review of whether the asserted basis for removal satisfied the governing statute. Accordingly, the Court concluded that Governor Cook had demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success to justify preserving the status quo pending a final determination on the merits.

On the issue of due process, the majority reasoned that statutory removal protections imply procedural safeguards and should not become ineffective through immediate executive action before judicial review can occur. Because the government had not shown sufficient justification for disturbing the injunction, the Court denied emergency relief.

Justice Kavanaugh concurred, emphasizing that the Court’s decision resolved only the request for interim relief and expressed no view regarding the ultimate legality of the removal. Justice Jackson concurred separately, explaining that traditional equitable principles favored preserving the status quo to ensure meaningful review. 

Justice Thomas dissented, concluding that the President’s removal authority should not be restrained through preliminary injunctive relief absent a definitive determination that the removal was unlawful. 

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Gorsuch, separately dissented, arguing that the Court should not have addressed questions closely tied to the merits in the context of an emergency application.

Justice Barrett also dissented separately, similarly expressing concern that the Court’s analysis effectively resolved important merits question, including the meaning of statutory “cause,” the scope of procedural questions, and the availability of injunctive relief, before those issues had been fully litigated in the lower courts.

Takeaways

• The decision preserves the status quo—it does not resolve the merits—technically. The Court held only that Governor Cook may remain in office while the legality of her removal is litigated. It did not determine whether the President ultimately possesses authority to remove her.

• Statutory removal protections remain subject to meaningful judicial review. The majority concluded that Congress’s decision to provide removal protections would be significantly undermined if an officer could be removed before a court had an opportunity to determine whether the statutory standard had been satisfied.

• The case underscores the Court’s cautious approach to emergency relief in separation of powers disputes. Rather than deciding the scope of presidential removal authority on an emergency application, the Court preserved existing statutory protections while allowing the underlying constitutional and statutory questions to proceed through the ordinary course of litigation.

For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, or David Ter-Petrosyan.

A special thanks to Summer Associate Nareh Aghakhanian for assisting with this alert.