The Supreme Court is poised to decide whether President Trump can unilaterally remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, a ruling that would clarify the boundaries between presidential power and Fed independence.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell has publicly supported Cook in a visible show of backing, signaling a more assertive stance than his prior responses to Trump’s criticisms of the Fed.

Cook remains on the Fed Board as she challenges her removal, and the Court has allowed her to stay in position during the proceedings.

Independent agencies are typically multi-member and insulated from direct presidential dismissal, a structure rooted in removal-for-cause protections dating back to Humphrey’s Executor.

Observers note that Congress could remedy the issue through legislation, but any such move would require broad cross-party support.

The Associated Press contributed reporting to the story, underscoring its wide public interest.

At issue is how narrowly or broadly the Court defines “cause” for removing Fed governors and what that means for monetary policy independence.

The piece highlights the Fed’s historically recognized status as uniquely structured, with the Court’s decision potentially reshaping the balance of power between Congress and the presidency over independent agencies.

Context around Cook’s case includes potential personal finance disclosures and mortgages, but the legal question focuses on removal power, not past paperwork.

Supporters argue that preserving Fed independence guards against inflationary bias and sustains credibility, citing past episodes where independence mattered for price stability.

With a conservative 6-3 majority, observers expect the Court to emphasize preserving the Fed’s independence to support economic stability, with a decision anticipated by mid-year.

The case sits within a broader trend of skepticism toward independent agencies, a factor that could influence the Court’s handling of removal power and Fed autonomy.