Trump v. Cook · ¶24

The Court of Appeals declined to stay the injunction. Judge Garcia, joined by Judge Childs, filed a concurrence focused solely on Cook’s due process claim. As a public official who may be removed only “for cause,” he contended, Cook has a property interest in her position, and may not be removed summarily. 2025 WL 2654786, *1 (CADC, Sept. 15, 2025). Judge Katsas dissented. He would have rejected Cook’s due process claim on the basis that a public official, unlike an employee, can have no property right in her position. And he would have held that a termination “for cause” merely requires some reference to a person’s “conduct, ability, fitness, or competence”—a requirement that the President “plainly” met here. Id., at *7.

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