(WASHINGTON) -- The Supreme Court has blocked for now President Donald Trump's unprecedented attempt to fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Lisa Cook, over the allegation of gross negligence and without any formal opportunity for her to answer the claims. 

In a 5-4 ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court's majority, upheld limits Congress imposed on a president's attempt to remove members of the Fed as a legitimate protection of the institution's historical independence. 

While the president has the ability to fire Cook "for cause," he wrote, "the President failed to afford Cook the procedural protections to which she was entitled by statute. Without such protections, she could not properly dispute the charges the President laid against her."

Roberts said the majority's "narrow" decision took no position on the underlying allegations against Cook or whether the president met the standard for removing her. The outcome leaves the door open to the possibility that Trump could continue to try to press his case. 

"The ultimate question of whether the President can remove Cook for cause will depend in part on the underlying facts. In this opinion, we have not addressed the facts, as they have yet to be found or analyzed under the relevant legal standards," Roberts wrote. "Rather, we have simply addressed the parties' arguments about the appropriate legal standards under which the facts must be evaluated." 

Cook, a Democratic appointee who has 10 years left on her 14-year term, will retain her position for now. She is the first Black woman to serve on the central bank's advisory committee. 

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented in the case. 

Barrett wrote that the court's decision amounts to "significant interference with the President's removal authority" constituting "irreparable harm" while the litigation continues. 

While the court has recognized expansive power of a president over executive branch agencies, it has appeared to draw a line at the Fed, which has a long history of independence from direct White House interference. 

Federal law allows presidents to remove a Fed governor, but only for cause. The heart of Trump's appeal before the high court involved what constitutes "cause" -- who gets to decide that and what due process may be owed.

The president had asserted unchecked power, insisting allegations of mortgage fraud against Cook -- raised by a member of Trump's administration, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte -- were sufficient basis alone for her removal.

Pulte, who Trump has since appointed to serve as acting director of national intelligence, said in a post on X, "As I have repeatedly said, I believe Lisa Cook will be indicted for mortgage fraud." 

Trump has claimed Cook illegally filed a mortgage application for a second home as a "primary" residence in an effort to secure more favorable loan terms, at the very least creating an impression of impropriety. The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation. 

Cook, who refused to resign and has not been charged with a crime, insists through her attorneys that relying on "one stray reference" in a 2021 mortgage document amounts to pretext for a politically motivated effort to manipulate the Fed's policy board.

"This was never about mortgage documents signed years before I became a Federal Reserve governor. It was an attempt to remove me on a manufactured pretext because I refused to bow to political pressure and continued to set interest rates based only on what would best serve the American people," Cook said in a statement after the high court's decision. "That is the most fundamental obligation of a Federal Reserve governor. Today's ruling affirms a principle that has underpinned sound economic stewardship for generations."

The case was being examined by the court in a very preliminary posture, focusing primarily on Trump's request to stay a lower court order that Cook be allowed to remain on the job as litigation continues. No lower court has thoroughly considered the legal or constitutional issues connected to the dispute.

The court's decision is widely seen as a victory for the independence of the Federal Reserve -- at least in the near term -- in the face of Trump's extraordinary effort to influence the central bank.  

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.