The Supreme Court is considering the independence of the Federal Reserve in a case involving Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, who is challenging her removal by former President Donald Trump.
A rare amicus brief, signed by every living former chair of the Federal Reserve—Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and Janet Yellen—along with six former Treasury secretaries and seven former White House economic advisors, was filed with the court. This group, representing decades of U.S. economic policymaking, urged the justices to protect the Federal Reserve's independence.
The filing argues that allowing a president to remove a sitting Fed governor could undermine public confidence in the central bank's ability to set monetary policy, potentially threatening long-term economic stability and risking higher inflation. The economists warned that the ongoing dispute itself is being closely watched by financial markets, the public, employers, and lenders as an indicator of the Fed's credibility.
In a 5-4 ruling, the justices determined that the Federal Reserve holds a unique constitutional position, permitting Cook to remain in her role while her lawsuit proceeds. The amicus brief is an extraordinary intervention, as former Fed chairs and Treasury secretaries typically avoid public legal disputes.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, argued that the amici filing focused on policy preferences rather than the legal issues at the core of the case. He contended that these policy arguments lacked logical limits and did not represent the law.
The case represents a significant test of the legal safeguards that have historically insulated the Federal Reserve from direct political influence.