Trump v. Cook
In a dispute over President Trump's attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook "for cause," the Court denied the government's application and held that Cook could remain in her job while the removal efforts were litigated.· AI-written
146 S. Ct. 2234 · No. 25A312 · 2025 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 29, 2026 · argued Jan 21, 2026
Judicial power · Judicial administration: extraordinary relief (e.g., mandamus, injunction)
Majority opinion: John Roberts
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Petition denied or appeal dismissed. Trump lost.
What this ruling means
Dismissed: after hearing the case the Supreme Court declined to decide it, so the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit stands.
Trump was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Donald J. Trump v. Lisa D. Cook et al. is a lawsuit brought by Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, against President Donald Trump, the board, and its chairman, Jerome Powell. Cook contended that her attempted "for cause" removal by President Trump was not for cause, and that the President had in any event failed to comply with constitutional and statutory processes.
On September 9, 2025, District of Columbia U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb issued a preliminary injunction preventing the firing of Cook, stating that "the Court finds that Cook has made a strong showing that her purported removal was done in violation of the Federal Reserve Act's 'for cause' provision." On September 15, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected an emergency appeal by the Trump administration to remove Cook before the September 2025 meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee. On October 1, the Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal filed by the Trump administration to remove Cook. Oral arguments were held in January 2026. On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court denied the government's application and held that Cook could remain in her job while President Trump's efforts to remove her were litigated.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their provisional Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2025 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
John RobertsWrote the majority opinion
Ketanji JacksonWrote a concurrence
Brett KavanaughWrote a concurrence
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Amy BarrettWrote a dissent
Samuel AlitoWrote a dissent
Clarence ThomasWrote a dissent
Neil GorsuchJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The 2025 scores are provisional. The official Martin–Quinn release does not cover this term yet, so the scores are copied from Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin & Michael J. Nelson, Provisional Data Report on the U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 Term, Table 3.1 (scores by Kevin Quinn), published 2026-06-30. They will be replaced by the official scores when those come out, and may change. The median line is the middle of these nine scores.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- TrumpGovernmental official, or an official of an agency established under an interstate compact (United States)
- Respondent
- CookGovernmental employee or job applicant (United States)
- Reached the Court by
- Unspecified, other
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- 12 U.S. Code § 242
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Statutory construction; Judicial review (national level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 29, 2026DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: petition denied or appeal dismissed. Trump lost.
- Jan 21, 2026ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court by unspecified, other.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit: affirmed, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the District Of Columbia U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
5 other argued cases since 1946 on judicial administration: extraordinary relief (e.g., mandamus, injunction), newest first.
- Chandler, U.S. District Judge v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit398 U.S. 74Jun 1, 1970 · 398 U.S. 74Judicial power5–27–2 band
- In re Herndon394 U.S. 399Mar 25, 1969 · 394 U.S. 399Judicial power6–27–2 band
- Will, U.S. District Judge v. United States389 U.S. 90Nov 13, 1967 · 389 U.S. 90Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- United States v. First National City Bank379 U.S. 378Jan 18, 1965 · 379 U.S. 378Judicial power7–27–2 band
- Whitehouse et al. v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. et al.349 U.S. 366Jun 6, 1955 · 349 U.S. 366Judicial power5–36–3 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.