Supreme Court Sets January Hearing on Trump’s Bid to Fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook

The federal government argues ‘improper judicial interference’ prevented the August firing of Lisa Cook. A hearing is set for January.

Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Lisa Cook listens during an open meeting of the board at the Federal Reserve in Washington on June 25, 2025. Mark Schiefelbein/AP Photo

The U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 12 scheduled oral arguments for January 2026 in the case challenging President Donald Trump’s firing of Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook.

The hearing will take place on Jan. 21, the court said in a scheduling order.

Trump had filed an emergency application with the court on Sept. 18 seeking an order ousting Cook as a member of the Federal Reserve Board.

In the application, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said lower courts had engaged in “improper judicial interference” by preventing the president from removing a member of the Federal Reserve Board for cause.

On Oct. 1, the nation’s highest court deferred its ruling on Trump’s request and stated that it would hold a hearing on the application on an undetermined date in January.

Trump, who has been highly critical of Fed policies, alleges that Cook committed mortgage fraud related to two properties she purchased before joining the Fed.

The White House stated that the fraud allegations—which Cook denies—are serious enough that the president is allowed to fire Cook.

Trump fired Cook on Aug. 25, the first time a president has ever moved to end the tenure of a Fed board member, citing his authority under the Federal Reserve Act. He said in a letter posted online that he determined that there was “sufficient reason to believe [she] may have made false statements on one or more mortgage documents.”

On Sept. 15, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2–1 to uphold a lower court’s preliminary injunction preventing Cook’s removal from the Fed board while pending litigation plays out.

Trump had appealed a preliminary injunction that U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb of the District of Columbia issued on Sept. 9.

The injunction, which remains in effect, blocked the president from removing Cook from office while the lawsuit over her termination continues.

Cook joined the Federal Reserve Board in January 2022 to fill an unexpired term after being nominated by then-President Joe Biden. She was reappointed in September 2023. Her current term is set to expire in January 2038.

The Federal Reserve System is the nation’s central bank. It manages monetary policy through activities such as setting interest rates. The Fed also oversees financial institutions and electronic payment systems, distributes currency, and serves as a lender of last resort to financial institutions under stress.

Cook filed a brief on Sept. 18, saying that the president “has no urgent or compelling need to deprive” her of her position. Removing her from her post “would threaten our Nation’s economic stability and raise questions about the Federal Reserve’s continued independence—risking shock waves in the financial markets that could not easily be undone.”

On Nov. 12, the Supreme Court also scheduled oral arguments in other cases, including two about whether states can ban male athletes who don’t identify with their sex from competing on school sports teams intended for females.

The two cases will be heard back-to-back on Jan. 13, 2026.

One, Little v. Hecox, concerns Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, “which ensures that women and girls do not have to compete against men and boys no matter how those men and boys identify,” according to the petition filed in the case.

Lindsay Hecox filed the lawsuit, alleging that the state statute violates the equal protection clause and Title IX, a federal civil rights law that forbids sex-based discrimination at schools that receive federal funding. Hecox, a male who identifies as female, wanted to compete as part of the Boise State University women’s teams for track and cross country.

A federal district court blocked the act, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that laws making sex-based distinctions in schools serve as “proxy discrimination” against transgender-identifying athletes.

The second case, West Virginia v. B.P.J., is about a similar law in West Virginia. State lawmakers voted to keep the sexes separate in sports because of the “inherent physical differences between biological males and biological females,” according to the petition.

The state’s Save Women’s Sports Act of 2021 stipulates that female teams based on “competitive skill” or involving “a contact sport” must not be open to males.

B.P.J., a young male who identifies as female, filed suit to block the law, arguing that the law’s “biology-based distinction” runs afoul of the Constitution’s equal protection clause and Title IX.

After initially blocking the law, a federal district court reversed its earlier decision and held there was “no genuine dispute that biological males have physiological advantages over biological females,” the petition states.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reinstated the block. In April 2023, the Supreme Court declined to lift the injunction over dissents by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.