Former Fed chairs filed a brief with the Supreme Court against Trump’s removal powers
NEWNow you can listen to Fox News articles!
The filing of rare petitions by prominent economists and former government officials highlighted the importance of the Supreme Court’s decision allowing Lisa Cook, the top official at the Federal Reserve, to continue in her job while her legal challenge to President Donald Trump’s impeachment moves forward.
In a 5-4 decision, the justices concluded that the Federal Reserve is in a unique constitutional position among independent federal agencies, allowing Cook to remain in office while his case continues.
The case drew dramatic comments from leading figures in US economic policy, who urged the court to preserve the Federal Reserve’s independence and warned that increasing the president’s control over the central bank could undermine confidence in US monetary policy.
An amicus brief is a filing by a non-party who provides information, expertise or legal arguments to help the court decide a case.
WHO IS LISA COOK? FED GOVERNOR IN FIGHT CENTER IN TRUMP’S SPEECH
President Donald Trump and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook are shown side by side in this photo. (Andrew Harnik/Al Drago/Getty Images/Getty Images)
It was signed by all former Federal Reserve chairmen, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen, as well as six former Treasury secretaries who worked for presidents of both parties.
The group, which includes seven White House economic advisers, spans nearly five decades of American economic policymaking.
Such interventions are rare, as former Fed chairs and Treasury secretaries generally avoid civil legal battles.
In a 32-page amicus brief, the group says allowing the Trump administration to remove the Fed governor “would erode public confidence in the Fed’s independence and threaten long-term economic stability.”
POWELL WARNS LISA COOK’S SUPREME COURT CASE COULD BE MOST IMPORTANT LEGISLATIVE CASE IN FED HISTORY
Chairman Jerome Powell speaks with Fed Governor Lisa Cook at the Federal Reserve Board building in Washington, DC, on June 25, 2025. (Sal Loeb/AFP/GettyImages)
Expanding the power of the president over the membership of the Fed board is “unnecessary and wrong” and will have no effect, the group writes, because it will reduce the independence of the central bank and risk inflation and economic instability.
That concern, the group argues, is already playing out in real time.
“Sectors closely watching the Federal Reserve – including financial markets, the public, employers and lenders – are watching the current controversy over the removal of the President of Governor Cook to judge how reliable the Fed will be going forward.”
Solicitor General D. John Sauer said Cook’s filing did not resolve “the legal issues at the heart of this case.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS PROGRAM
“Most of Cook’s amici emphasize policy arguments, touting the perceived benefits of the Federal Reserve Board’s independence in setting monetary policy,” Sauer wrote, adding that “policy preferences are not rules, and these preferences have no rational limit.”
The case has emerged as a major test of legal protections that have long barred the Federal Reserve from direct political control.
Read the amicus brief here:
