Will the Supreme Court really do this?
A rarely seen legal maneuver by some of the most powerful figures in American economic history is now hovering over a Supreme Court case that could dramatically reshape presidential authority — and the future of the Federal Reserve.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court spent nearly two hours hearing arguments over whether President Donald Trump has the power to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from the central bank’s Board of Governors. The case carries enormous implications, not just for the Fed, but for who ultimately controls U.S. monetary policy.
What stunned many observers was an extraordinary legal filing submitted by former economic insiders who almost never step into active court battles.
The court submission, formally known as an amicus brief, carries the signatures of all living former Federal Reserve chairs — Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and Janet Yellen — as well as six former Treasury secretaries who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Several former White House economic advisers also joined the filing.
Together, the signers represent roughly fifty years of influence over America’s financial system.
Such coordinated intervention is highly unusual. Former Fed chairs and Treasury secretaries traditionally avoid public legal disputes, especially ones involving a sitting president. Their sudden involvement signals just how high the stakes have become.
In their 32-page brief, the group argues that allowing President Trump to remove a sitting Federal Reserve governor would weaken confidence in the central bank and threaten long-term economic stability. They warn that expanding presidential authority over the Fed’s leadership could increase market uncertainty, inflation risks, and financial volatility.
According to the filing, the consequences are already unfolding.
Financial markets, lenders, employers, and investors are closely watching the dispute to gauge whether the Federal Reserve can continue operating independently — or whether political pressure will begin shaping monetary decisions.
The Trump administration sharply rejected those arguments.
Solicitor General John Sauer said the outside brief avoids the central legal questions in the case. He argued that many of Cook’s supporters rely on policy preferences rather than constitutional authority, emphasizing that policy opinions do not determine the law and warning against creating unchecked limits on presidential power.
The outcome of the case could extend well beyond Cook.
Legal experts say the ruling may influence the future status of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell as well. In a rare move, Powell personally attended the Supreme Court arguments — a departure from his typically low-profile approach.
Powell’s appearance comes amid a criminal investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., tied to his congressional testimony regarding a multibillion-dollar renovation of the Federal Reserve’s headquarters. Powell has described the probe as unprecedented.
Cook’s rise to the Federal Reserve was historic when she was appointed. Now, she stands at the center of a legal battle with potentially historic consequences.
If President Trump succeeds, it would mark the first time in the Federal Reserve’s 112-year history that a president removes a sitting board member — a move that could permanently alter the balance of power between the White House and the nation’s central bank.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision by early summer, setting the stage for a ruling that could redefine presidential authority for decades to come.
