Blue Brief 2025-2026

By law the President can remove a governor “for cause.” Cook sued in part on the ground that the President’s stated rationale did not amount to cause. She obtained a preliminary injunction allowing her to remain in her post. The appeal before the Court sought to stay the injunction, allowing her immediate termination while the underlying case proceeded.

in part because it decided Slaughter at the same time and the Court did not want Slaughter to create uncertainty about the Fed. The Court saw “no reason to leave the public in limbo, or to sow doubt as to the status of one of our Nation’s (and the world’s) most important financial institutions.” It is a rare case of the Court seeking to calm the markets for prudential reasons. Hamilton would have approved. The Court also set the standard for assessing cause on remand. Its test includes at least “the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, and the extent of any nexus that may exist to the Governor’s professional duties.” The key question, for the Court, is whether the facts imply unfitness for the post or whether the charge “simply represents an effort to secure a ‘more congenial’ replacement.” Stay tuned. Slaughter is Hamiltonian in a different sense. Rebecca Slaughter was an FTC commissioner whom President Trump fired in March 2025. The governing statute provided standards for removal, but the President did not assert them; he fired her on the ground that her views were inconsistent with his priorities. Slaughter thus presented the question the government waived in Cook — whether Congress may by statute constrain the President’s power to remove officers exercising authority within “the executive power.” The Court sided with the President. It held that the Constitution vests the executive power in the President. This vesting of power includes the power to remove officials wielding such power, the FTC exercises such power, ergo Congress cannot constrain the President’s ability to remove officers exercising power the Constitution delegates to the President.

The cases may appear contradictory, but they are not.

The government asserted that the statutory text empowered President Trump to decide for himself what counted as cause, and that his decision was final and unreviewable. The Court held the government was unlikely to prevail (and thus not entitled to a stay) because, as used in the statute, the term “cause” must be interpreted to “reflect the Federal Reserve’s unique historical status and role,” including Congress’s desire — and the historical necessity — that the Fed operate independently of transient political desires. Only Justice Thomas’s dissent argued that Congress could not limit the President’s power to terminate a Fed governor. Because the Court denied the stay on statutory grounds, and because the Trump administration waived any argument that the removal restriction was unconstitutional, the Court did not need to reach the constitutional issue. It did anyway,

UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO SCHOOL OF LAW | Faculty Review of 2025-2026 U.S. Supreme Court Term | Page 18