Trump v. Cook · ¶23

The District Court agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction to prevent her removal. It noted first that the scope of the dispute was narrowed by the Government’s concession (for purposes of this proceeding) that the statute itself is constitutional. It then turned to Cook’s two claims, both of which it considered likely to succeed. As to the first, it held that the President had failed to state “a legally permissible cause,” because “cause” refers only to “an official’s in-office conduct or performance”—a standard that could not be met here, given that the mortgages at issue predated Cook’s tenure at the Federal Reserve. 804 F. Supp. 3d 14, 26, 32 (DC 2025). And as to the second, it held that the Constitution entitled Cook “to notice and a hearing before her termination”—process she had not received. Id., at 33. The District Court finally concluded that Cook faced irreparable harm…

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