Trump v. Cook · ¶192
All these questions are complicated and important, but the last is in a league of its own. And unlike the other issues, the constitutional status of the Federal Reserve is entirely outside the scope of this case. The Government expressly waived any constitutional challenge to the removal restriction, so the parties did not brief it. Application 2, n. 1 (“This application does not contest the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve Board’s for-cause removal provision”); see also Reply Brief 13; Supp. Brief for Applicant 1. And the lower courts approached this case from the start on the assumption that the removal restriction is consistent with Article II. We ordinarily do not jump ahead of the lower courts to decide waived issues. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005); cf. Trump v. Illinois, 607 U. S. ＿＿＿ (2025) (reaching an issue of statutory interpretation decided…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.