Northwestern law professors available on upcoming SCOTUS hearings on Trump v. Lisa Cook

• For Journalists
• News Releases
• Latest Releases
• News Release

Northwestern law professors available on upcoming SCOTUS hearings on Trump v. Lisa Cook

"Whether the Court's decision in this case will be consequential with respect to the Fed or with respect to federal administrative agencies depends upon how far the Justices are prepared to reach into the complex and timely questions of the president's constitutional power to direct agencies and affect regulatory administration," expert says

CHICAGO --- The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday in another case regarding the president's power to remove the members of independent agencies in the federal government.

In Trump v. Cook, the case focuses on President Trump's attempt to fire Lisa Cook - an economist and member of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors - in August 2025. Lower courts ruled in favor of Cook, but the Supreme Court agreed to put those rulings on hold and hear the case. Under the Federal Reserve Act, members of the Federal Board of Governors can only be removed by the president "for cause," which the law does not define.

Northwestern Pritzker Law professors are available to media.

Daniel Rodriguez is the Harold Washington Professor of Law. His academic work is in the areas of administrative law, local government law, statutory interpretation, federal and state constitutional law and the law-business-technology interface.

Quote from Professor Dan Rodriguez
"The question in a case heard late in 2025 and still awaiting decision involves a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission was whether and to what extent Congress can, consistent with the U.S. Constitution, put limits on the president's power to remove agency officials. By contrast, the case being heard tomorrow deals with a narrower question. President Trump and his lawyers are not arguing here for complete decision to remove a member of the Fed, but rather that the restriction in the statute that he may remove such a member only 'for cause' is met in this case. Moreover, the administration makes other more technical arguments that this dispute should not have been heard and resolved by the lower court, nor that Ms. Cook is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond to the administration's rationale for her termination."

James Pfander is the Owen L. Coon Professor of Law. His research focuses on the role of judicial systems in constitutional democracies and federal jurisdiction. Pfander filed an amicus brief on the remedial issue. Click here to read the full brief.

Quote from Professor James Pfander

"In Trump v. Cook, the Court may decide two questions: First, does the Constitution's Article II grant of executive power to the president override congressional restrictions on the removal of Federal Reserve Board members and, second, what kind of judicial remedy should be available for Board members if they have been wrongly removed."

To speak with professors Rodriguez or Pfander, please reach out to Shanice Harris at [email protected].