Trump v. Cook · ¶117
Judge Katsas dissented. He explained that Cook lacked a right of action to sue government officials otherwise entitled to sovereign immunity, so she could succeed only if she satisfied “the demanding standards for raising an ultra vires claim,” which this Court has described as “‘essentially a Hail Mary pass’” that requires showing an extreme legal error. Id., at *6 (quoting NRC v. Texas, 605 U. S. 665, 681– 82 (2025)). Judge Katsas then explained that the President’s removal of Cook was not unlawful at all, let alone so extremely unlawful as to warrant ultra vires relief. As to the process for the removal, Judge Katsas explained that President Trump did not deprive Cook of property without due process, because, under this Court’s precedents, “‘public offices are mere agencies or trusts, and not property as such.’” 2025 WL 2654786, *8 (quoting Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U. S. 548, 577…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.