By Staff, Agencies

A US appeals court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s bid to oust Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, marking the first time since the Fed’s creation in 1913 that a president has tried to fire a sitting board member.

The ruling underscores a high-stakes legal clash that could reshape the Fed’s independence.

The D.C. Court upheld a block on removing Fed Governor Lisa Cook, finding Trump’s fraud claims likely lacked legal grounds.

In a 2-1 ruling, Judges Bradley Garcia and J. Michelle Childs, both appointed by President Biden, formed the majority, while Trump-appointed Judge Gregory Katsas dissented.

The ruling lets Cook remain on the Fed board for now, allowing her to join this week’s key rate-cut meeting.

Judge Garcia said Cook’s rights were violated, noting she had no meaningful notice or chance to respond to the allegations.

The White House and Cook’s legal team declined comment, while the Fed pledged to follow court orders and hoped for a quick resolution.

Meanwhile, the Senate narrowly confirmed Trump’s Fed pick, Stephen Miran, in a 48–47 vote, allowing him to join this week’s policy meeting.

Congress shielded the Fed from political pressure, allowing governors to be removed only “for cause”—a vague, rarely tested standard. No Fed governor has ever been fired by a president.

Garcia’s opinion noted Cook’s due-process claim was strong enough to avoid ruling on the broader “for cause” removal issue.

Cook, the Fed’s first Black woman governor, sued Trump and the Fed in August, claiming the fraud charges were a pretext to punish her policy views.

Trump’s lawyers argue he has broad power to remove Fed governors without court interference, while critics warn this threatens the Fed’s political independence in setting interest rates.

Trump has pushed the Fed to cut rates aggressively, criticizing Chair Powell, while the central bank, though resistant, is expected to lower rates this week amid slowing job growth.

While the Supreme Court has backed Trump’s removal powers before, it recently hinted the Fed’s unique “quasi-private” status might warrant different treatment.