Kavanaugh warns Trump case could ‘shatter’ Federal Reserve independence in Supreme Court hearing

Justice Brett Kavanaugh voiced concern during oral arguments on Wednesday that a Supreme Court case involving Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook could erode the central bank’s independence if the justices were to side with President Donald Trump in it.

Kavanaugh asked Solicitor General John Sauer, who argued on behalf of the administration, about his position that Trump alone can decide what ’cause’ means when firing a Federal Reserve governor.

‘That’s your position, no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available,’ Kavanaugh said, describing it as a ‘very low bar for cause that the president alone determines.’

Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, added that that would ‘weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.’

Sauer said he disagreed and that the law requiring a Federal Reserve governor to be fired for cause was, in fact, a ‘high bar.’

‘It’s our very strong protection because it does protect them from the one thing that Congress was apparently most worried about, which is a removal for policy disagreement,’ Sauer said. 

The high-stakes case stems from Cook, who was represented during oral arguments by renowned conservative attorney Paul Clement, suing over Trump removing her from the Federal Reserve’s powerful seven-member board of governors.

Cook was appointed by former President Joe Biden. Board members serve 14-year terms, and no president has ever fired a single one.

The justices are weighing whether to keep in place a lower court injunction that has allowed Cook to remain in her post while her lawsuit proceeds.

Trump has argued he has broad authority to fire Cook, alleging she committed private mortgage fraud. Cook has denied those claims and said she has received no due process. She has not been charged with any crime.

While the conservative justices appeared largely sympathetic during a separate case examining Trump’s stance that he could fire members of independent agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, the justices appeared to view the Federal Reserve as more insulated during Wednesday’s arguments.

The Federal Reserve, created in 1913, moderates interest rates and, unlike other independent agencies, it is not funded by Congress and its policy decisions do not need presidential or legislative approval.

Trump has repeatedly blasted Chairman Jerome Powell and the Federal Reserve for lowering benchmark interest rates at a slower pace than the president wants. The president’s feud with the Federal Reserve recently expanded after Powell revealed that the Department of Justice was investigating him over an allegation he lied to Congress, which Powell denies.

Kavanaugh also raised a bigger picture question, asking Sauer what the implications of deciding in favor of Trump would mean for future administrations.

‘Let’s talk about the real-world, downstream effects of this, because if this were set as a precedent, it seems to me, just thinking big picture, what goes around, comes around,’ Kavanaugh said. ‘All the current president’s appointees would likely be removed for cause on Jan. 20, 2029, if there’s a Democratic president or Jan. 20, 2033. And then, we’re really at at-will removal.’

Justices across the ideological spectrum voiced skepticism about Trump’s ability to fire Cook. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, said she found the whole case unusual, noting that Trump first raised Cook’s termination through social media.

‘This whole case is irregular, starting with a Truth Social notice, or thinking of it as notice at all, certainly didn’t invite an opportunity to be heard. But that’s where we are,’ Sotomayor said.

Fox News’ Bill Mears contributed to this report.