Trump v. Cook · ¶4
Held: The Government’s application is denied. Pp. 8–27. (a) The Government has not shown that it is likely to prevail on the legal arguments advanced in its stay application. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U. S. 183, 190 (per curiam); Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434. Acceptance of the Government’s position would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment—an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference. Pp. 8–16. (1) The Government first contends that the President’s determination of “cause” is wholly unreviewable because the statute “commits the determination of cause to” the President alone. Application 20. The Court sees no such commitment. Whether a Governor should be “removed for cause” is a decision only the President can make (short…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.