The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Sept. 18 to grant an emergency order ousting Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, from her post.
President Donald Trump alleges that Cook committed mortgage fraud related to two properties she purchased before joining the Fed.
The White House says the fraud allegations—which Cook denies—are serious enough that the president is allowed to fire Cook.
The letter stated that William Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, made a criminal referral on Aug. 15 about the mortgage allegations to Attorney General Pam Bondi. A criminal referral is a formal recommendation by a government official to another to investigate or prosecute alleged criminal activity.
The referral states that Cook signed a document verifying that a property in Michigan would be her primary residence for the next year, but two weeks later, she signed another document saying a Georgia property would be her primary residence for that year, according to Trump’s letter.
“It is inconceivable that you were not aware of your first commitment when making the second. It is impossible that you intended to honor both,” Trump told Cook in the letter.
“At a minimum, the conduct at issue exhibits the sort of gross negligence in financial transactions that calls into question your competence and trustworthiness as a financial regulator.”
The injunction temporarily blocked the president from removing Cook from office while the lawsuit over her termination continued.
Cook’s attorneys have said the president may remove Fed governors only for cause, which typically refers to poor job performance or misconduct in office.
Her attorneys also said she should have been provided an opportunity to respond to the allegations before being terminated.
Sauer said the D.C. Circuit Court was wrong to find that because Cook has a “property” interest in her job as a Fed governor, her due process rights were violated.
“Although this Court has concluded that tenure-protected government employees have a property interest in their jobs, it has long held that tenure-protected officers have no property right to their offices. Officers exercise significant government power, and no individual has a property right to such power,” he said.
Even if Cook enjoyed a property interest in her office, her removal nonetheless complied with the Constitution’s due process clause, according to Sauer.
“Courts have no basis for demanding more process for the removal of a principal executive officer than the political branches choose to provide,” he said.
Besides, the president advised Cook of the allegations against her and gave her five days to respond before removing her.
“Having declined to bring any defense to the President’s attention or to dispute any material facts, Cook cannot complain about insufficient process,” the solicitor general said.
The Supreme Court should decline to block the injunction keeping Cook in office because the president “has no urgent or compelling need to deprive” her of her position, the brief stated.
“Temporarily 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. The President’s application provides no persuasive ground to take that extraordinary step,” the brief reads.
The Federal Reserve System is the nation’s central bank. It manages monetary policy through such activities 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.
The Supreme Court could issue a ruling in the case at any time.
The Epoch Times reached out to Cook for comment but did not hear back by publication time.
