Trump v. Cook · ¶187

On those two issues, the courts below were incorrect. As the majority and JUSTICE THOMAS apparently agree, the District Court erred in holding that removal “for cause” means removal only for “events that have occurred while [the officer is] in office.” 804 F. Supp. 3d, at 30; see ante, at 11–15; ante, at 14–16 (dissenting opinion). And as JUSTICE THOMAS and Judge Katsas have explained, Cook lacks a private property interest in her seat on the Board of Governors. See ante, at 14; Order 16a–19a (Katsas, J., dissenting). Thus, the President’s attempt to remove her could not have violated the Due Process Clause. See American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U. S. 40, 59 (1999) (“Only after finding the deprivation of a protected interest do we look to see if the [defendant’s] procedures comport with due process”).

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.