最高法院目前阻止了唐纳德·特朗普总统史无前例的试图解雇联邦储备理事会的一名成员，丽莎·库克她被指控犯有重大过失，并且没有任何正式的机会来回答这些指控。
在一项5比4的裁决中，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨(John Roberts)代表法院的多数意见，支持国会对总统试图解除美联储成员职务的限制，作为对该机构历史独立性的合法保护。
他写道，虽然总统有权“有理由”解雇库克，“但总统未能向库克提供法律赋予她的程序性保护。没有这样的保护，她就无法对总统对她的指控进行适当的辩驳。”
罗伯茨说，大多数人的“狭隘”决定没有对针对库克的潜在指控或总统是否符合罢免她的标准采取立场。这一结果为特朗普可能继续试图推动他的案子敞开了大门。
“最终的问题是，总统是否有理由罢免库克，这将部分取决于潜在的事实。在这份意见中，我们没有涉及事实，因为它们还没有在相关法律标准下被发现或分析，”罗伯茨写道。“相反，我们只是处理了当事方关于评估事实必须遵循的适当法律标准的论点。"
库克是民主党任命的，她的14年任期还剩10年，目前将保留她的职位。她是第一位在中央银行顾问委员会任职的黑人女性。
大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯、萨缪尔·阿利托、尼尔·戈萨奇和艾米·科尼·巴雷特对此持异议。
巴雷特写道，在诉讼继续进行的同时，法院的决定相当于“对总统罢免权的重大干涉”，构成了“不可挽回的伤害”。
尽管最高法院承认总统对行政分支机构拥有广泛的权力，但它似乎对美联储划清了界限，美联储长期以来一直不受白宫的直接干预。
联邦法律允许总统罢免美联储理事，但必须有正当理由。特朗普在高等法院上诉的核心涉及什么构成“原因”——由谁来决定，以及可能需要什么样的正当程序。
总统声称拥有不受制约的权力，坚持对库克的抵押贷款欺诈指控-由特朗普政府的一名成员联邦住房金融机构主任提出比尔·普尔特就足以将她驱逐出境。
特朗普从那时起就有了普尔特被任命为国家情报局代理局长，在X上的一篇帖子中说，“正如我反复说过的，我相信丽莎·库克将因抵押贷款欺诈而被起诉。”
特朗普声称，库克非法提交了第二套住房的抵押贷款申请，作为“主要”住所，以确保更有利的贷款条款，至少造成了一种不正当的印象。司法部已经开始了刑事调查。
库克拒绝辞职，也没有受到犯罪指控，她通过律师坚持认为，依靠2021年抵押贷款文件中的“一个偏离参考”相当于出于政治动机操纵美联储政策委员会的借口。
“这与我成为美联储州长前几年签署的抵押贷款文件无关。这是企图以捏造的借口将我免职，因为我拒绝屈服于政治压力，并继续根据最符合美国人民利益的方式设定利率，”库克在高等法院裁决后的一份声明中说。「这是一名美联储总督最基本的责任。今天的裁决肯定了一个支撑了几代人健康经济管理的原则。”
该案件正在由法院以非常初步的姿态进行审查，主要关注特朗普要求维持下级法院的命令，即在诉讼继续进行的同时，允许库克留任。没有一个下级法院彻底考虑过与该争议相关的法律或宪法问题。
面对特朗普影响央行的非凡努力，法院的决定被广泛视为美联储独立的胜利——至少在短期内是如此。
Supreme Court blocks Trump, for now, from firing Fed Board member Lisa Cook
The Supreme Court has blocked for now President Donald Trump's unprecedentedattempt to fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors,Lisa Cook, over the allegation of gross negligence and without any formal opportunity for her to answer the claims.
In a 5-4 ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court's majority, upheld limits Congress imposed on a president's attempt to remove members of the Fed as a legitimate protection of the institution's historical independence.
While the president has the ability to fire Cook "for cause," he wrote, "the President failed to afford Cook the procedural protections to which she was entitled by statute. Without such protections, she could not properly dispute the charges the President laid against her."
Roberts said the majority's "narrow" decision took no position on the underlying allegations against Cook or whether the president met the standard for removing her. The outcome leaves the door open to the possibility that Trump could continue to try to press his case.
"The ultimate question of whether the President can remove Cook for cause will depend in part on the underlying facts. In this opinion, we have not addressed the facts, as they have yet to be found or analyzed under the relevant legal standards," Roberts wrote. "Rather, we have simply addressed the parties' arguments about the appropriate legal standards under which the facts must be evaluated."
Cook, a Democratic appointee who has 10 years left on her 14-year term, will retain her position for now. She is the first Black woman to serve on the central bank's advisory committee.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented in the case.
Barrett wrote that the court's decision amounts to "significant interference with the President's removal authority" constituting "irreparable harm" while the litigation continues.
While the court has recognized expansive power of a president over executive branch agencies, it has appeared to draw a line at the Fed, which has a long history of independence from direct White House interference.
Federal law allows presidents to remove a Fed governor, but only for cause. The heart of Trump's appeal before the high court involved what constitutes "cause" -- who gets to decide that and what due process may be owed.
The president had asserted unchecked power, insisting allegations of mortgage fraud against Cook -- raised by a member of Trump's administration, Federal Housing Finance Agency DirectorBill Pulte-- were sufficient basis alone for her removal.
Pulte, who Trump has sinceappointed to serve as acting director of national intelligence, said in a post on X, "As I have repeatedly said, I believe Lisa Cook will be indicted for mortgage fraud."
Trump has claimed Cook illegally filed a mortgage application for a second home as a "primary" residence in an effort to secure more favorable loan terms, at the very least creating an impression of impropriety. The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation.
Cook, who refused to resign and has not been charged with a crime, insists through her attorneys that relying on "one stray reference" in a 2021 mortgage document amounts to pretext for a politically motivated effort to manipulate the Fed's policy board.
"This was never about mortgage documents signed years before I became a Federal Reserve governor. It was an attempt to remove me on a manufactured pretext because I refused to bow to political pressure and continued to set interest rates based only on what would best serve the American people," Cook said in a statement after the high court's decision. "That is the most fundamental obligation of a Federal Reserve governor. Today's ruling affirms a principle that has underpinned sound economic stewardship for generations."
The case was being examined by the court in a very preliminary posture, focusing primarily on Trump's request to stay a lower court order that Cook be allowed to remain on the job as litigation continues. No lower court has thoroughly considered the legal or constitutional issues connected to the dispute.
The court's decision is widely seen as a victory for the independence of the Federal Reserve -- at least in the near term -- in the face of Trump's extraordinary effort to influence the central bank.
