Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook scored a major legal victory Monday when the Supreme Court ruled she couldn't be removed from office. But the decision came with a lengthy, 32-page dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas.
President Donald Trump had attempted to remove Cook, citing alleged mortgage fraud, which Cook has denied. The court's narrow 5-4 decision upheld lower court rulings that Cook could serve at the Fed while her legal case over the termination progressed. The justices also rejected the government's argument that Cook had received due process.
Cook's defense centered around a lack of due process on two fronts: the Federal Reserve Act, which says a governor can only be removed for cause, and a Fifth Amendment property claim related to her job.
In his dissent, Thomas disputed Cook's contention that her role at the Federal Reserve was her "property" because government officials don't own the public office they serve. He added that the statute authorizing the president to remove a Federal Reserve Board member for cause didn't require a notice or a hearing.
Thomas also wrote that the high court didn't have authority to uphold the district court ruling that originally blocked Cook's removal on a temporary basis last year.
And he took issue with the court carving out an exception allowing it to interfere with the removal of public officers.
"It expresses no such concern that it today upholds an injunction against the President's removal of an executive officer for the first time in the Constitution's 237-year history," Thomas wrote.
A separate, joint dissent from justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch agreed with Thomas' argument that Cook's seat on the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors wasn't private property. They added that Trump's attempt to remove her couldn't have violated the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, a key part of Cook's legal argument, because the seat wasn't her property. (The majority opinion didn't address the private property argument.)
Lastly, Justice Amy Coney Barrett criticized the majority for an overly broad opinion.
"While a modest approach would have been appropriate, the Court chooses to go big," she wrote. "Its opinion sets precedent on a series of important issues, with implications that extend well beyond this case."
All three dissents could be fodder for Trump "trying again, if he chooses to do so," as the majority wrote in a footnote to its opinion. In a post on Truth Social shortly before noon, Trump promised to do just that.
Write to Anita Hamilton at anita.hamilton@barrons.com
This content was created by Barron's, which is operated by Dow Jones & Co. Barron's is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
June 29, 2026 15:39 ET (19:39 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Comments