A U.S. appeals court blocked President Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook

A federal appeals court has blocked Donald Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa ￰0￱ is the first instance the president has pursued such action since the central bank’s founding in ￰1￱ ruling is a significant legal rebuke to a president who has sought ever greater control over the central ￰2￱ decision came less than a week before a closely watched policy meeting of the Federal Reserve, at which officials are expected to vote on whether to cut interest rates for the first time this ￰3￱ Cook remains sidelined, the court preserves the status quo structure of the seven-member Fed Board of Governors that influences ￰4￱ ￰5￱ case has attracted interest from across the ideological spectrum, since it deals with both the independence of the Federal Reserve and constraints on presidential ￰6￱ upholds protection under law In a 2-1 decision, the ￰7￱ Court of Appeals sided with Lisa Cook and barred ￰8￱ from removing her from his board at the Federal ￰9￱ a majority opinion, Judge Bradley Garcia and Judge Michelle Childs wrote that the court had issued an order in which they emphasized that Cook had been deprived of fundamentally fair ￰10￱ that decision, Cook had never been served with a complaint or allowed to defend herself, and all rights in trust were awarded by ￰11￱ the heart of the case is a provision in the Federal Reserve Act, which states that governors may only be removed “for cause”, such as serious misconduct or an inability to ￰12￱ court noted that the allegations against Cook stemmed from a 2021 mortgage application, filed before she joined the Fed in 2022, and therefore did not meet the legal threshold for ￰13￱ Trump appointee, Judge Gregory Katsas, disagreed with the ￰14￱ to his view, it is up to the president which kinds of misconduct are of the sackable ￰15￱ said that to curtail the president’s authority in this manner risked diluting accountability at the country’s most powerful financial ￰16￱ US Court of Appeals ruling is Cook’s personal and professional ￰17￱ has strongly denied wrongdoing since the accusations surfaced, decrying them as politically motivated smears against her ￰18￱ her legal team hailed the decision, saying that to have removed ￰19￱ from office unlawfully could have rattled investors, destabilized markets, and disrupted confidence in the central bank’s ￰20￱ ruling shapes next Fed meeting The ruling, issued without explanation, arrives at a particularly inopportune time for the Federal Reserve as its policymakers prepare to gather for one of their highly anticipated meetings of the ￰21￱ Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will likely cut interest rates this week, the first time in more than a decade, as it grapples with evidence of slowing growth and other pressures on the global economy.

A favorable ruling for President Trump would also have dramatically shifted the balance of power within the central ￰22￱ Cook been removed, Trump would have been free to name a successor and left his choices in control of four of the seven central bank’s board ￰23￱ majority would have given him greater influence over monetary policy, and he has publicly demanded faster and more aggressive rate ￰24￱ analysts say the consequences stretch far beyond a single board ￰25￱ reflects that the Federal Reserve has not caved to severe political pressure and changed its ￰26￱ say it sends a message to domestic and international markets that economic, not party political, factors would continue to drive ￰27￱ say stability is necessary to preserve confidence in the ￰28￱ and broader financial system.

Still, the legal fight may not end ￰29￱ Justice Department may also seek a review by the ￰30￱ Court of the ￰31￱ so, an outcome from the high court could have broader implications for the extent to which the president can oversee the central ￰32￱ Bybit now and claim a $50 bonus in minutes