2026-06-29T14:34:42.813Z / 《华盛顿邮报》
最高法院周一阻止唐纳德·特朗普总统立即解雇一名民主党任命的美联储理事，这一重大裁决维护了这家实力强大的央行的独立性，该银行负责引导美国经济走向。
这项以5票赞成、4票反对作出的裁决对特朗普来说是一次挫折。此前特朗普一直抱怨美联储没有足够快地下调利率，并积极施压，试图加强对那些国会旨在使其免受总统影响的联邦机构的控制。
大法官们周一还对另一起密切相关的案件作出了裁决。法院决定推翻一项已有近百年历史的先例，该先例允许国会限制总统解雇独立机构负责人的权力。这项裁决带来了几十年来政府结构最重大的变革之一。
该案源于特朗普试图解雇联邦贸易委员会的一名民主党成员。
在涉及美联储的这起案件中，总统试图罢免理事丽莎·库克，指控她犯有抵押贷款欺诈罪。美国司法部也针对时任美联储主席杰罗姆·H·鲍威尔是否曾向国会作出虚假陈述展开了调查，随后又撤销了该调查。库克和鲍威尔均否认存在任何不当行为，并指责特朗普试图掌控美联储以实现其政策目标。
特朗普的举动让一些经济学家感到不安，他们担心人为维持低利率可能会引发长期通胀。由于该案可能对经济产生影响，企业和市场一直在密切关注这场法律挑战。
来自法院不同意识形态阵营的一群大法官裁定，在针对库克解雇决定的诉讼审理期间，库克可以继续留任。该案可能需要数月甚至数年时间才能结案，最终可能会再次上诉至最高法院。
首席大法官约翰·G·罗伯茨二世撰写了多数意见，该意见得到了法院三名自由派大法官以及保守派大法官布雷特·M·卡瓦诺的支持。
罗伯茨写道，国会设立美联储的目的是使其独立于总统运作。
“任何对这一机制的改变都必须来自国会，而非法院，”他写道。“这就是为什么我们不能接受政府在本案中的主张。若照此行事，将允许总统在任何时候、以任何理由解雇美联储理事，事前无需任何通知，事后也不受任何司法审查。”
法院的四名保守派大法官提出了反对意见。
大法官塞缪尔·A·阿利托二世在异议意见中写道，最高法院受理库克的案件为时过早。他的观点得到了 fellow conservative 尼尔·M·戈萨奇的支持。
“我们面前的只是一项等待上诉期间的暂缓执行申请，法院本应在去年秋季通过简短命令批准或驳回该申请，”阿利托写道。“这起诉讼尚处于初期阶段，所涉及的问题具有新颖性，因此在这个节点进行口头辩论并发布全面意见是不合适的。”
在过去一年里，最高法院的保守派多数派在紧急裁决中多次支持特朗普解雇独立机构负责人的诉求。
多数派在裁决中写道，美联储的结构与此前案件所涉及的国家劳资关系委员会等机构不同，因此总统无权以同样的方式解雇其负责人。
一些法律专家预计会出现这样的裁决，因为大法官们在早前一起允许特朗普解雇两名独立监管机构负责人的案件中已经暗示了相关逻辑。
国会设立美联储是为了使其独立于总统，以便它能够做出艰难的决策——例如加息——这些决策对经济健康有益，但在政治上可能不受欢迎。美联储的使命是维持物价稳定并确保充分就业。
特朗普是美联储112年历史上首位试图解雇其理事的总统。今年8月，特朗普指控库克将两处住宅申报为主要居所，以获得更优惠的抵押贷款利率。在提交给最高法院的文件中，库克“明确”否认了这些指控，部分文件将其中一处房产列为“度假屋”。
库克于2022年由总统乔·拜登首次任命为美联储理事，并于2023年获得连任，任期14年，她是首位担任该职位的黑人女性。
这起最高法院案件围绕特朗普解雇库克的行为是否符合《联邦储备法》展开，该法案规定，美联储理事只有“因正当理由”才能被罢免。
今年8月，特朗普在社交媒体上宣布解雇库克几天后，她便向联邦法院提起诉讼。她的诉讼辩称，特朗普的指控未达到“因正当理由”罢免的标准，因为这些指控发生在她加入美联储董事会之前，且尚未得到证实。她的律师还表示，她没有得到为自己辩护的正当法律程序。
华盛顿特区的一名联邦法官支持库克的主张，允许她暂时继续履职。一个意见分歧的上诉法院维持了这一裁决，随后特朗普政府向最高法院提起上诉。大法官们在10月裁定，在他们审理此案期间，库克可以继续留在美联储任职。
在1月份的口头辩论中，副检察长D·约翰·佐尔告诉大法官们，有关抵押贷款的指控足以让特朗普解雇库克，法院无权对他的决定指手画脚。
“美国民众不应让那些在获取优惠利率时至少表现出严重过失的人来决定利率，”佐尔说道。
库克的律师保罗·D·克莱门特表示，大法官们如果在没有额外事实调查和法律程序的情况下就特朗普政府要求紧急罢免库克的请求作出裁决，未免过于草率。
“没有理由仅凭一项紧急申请就放弃超过100年的央行独立性原则，”克莱门特说道。
九名大法官中有八人对佐尔的论点提出了尖锐质疑。保守派大法官布雷特·M·卡瓦诺的态度尤为明确，他告诉佐尔，他在本案中的立场“即使不会彻底摧毁美联储的独立性，也会削弱它”。
卡瓦诺表示，总统可能会编造理由解雇美联储理事，这对央行具有危险的影响。“当我们拥有一个会助长这种行为的制度时，我们到底在做什么？”卡瓦诺问道。
库克和鲍威尔都出席了口头辩论，前美联储主席本·S·伯南克也到场旁听，这凸显了此案的重要性。当时所有在世的前美联储主席——伯南克、艾伦·格林斯潘和珍妮特·L·耶伦——以及六名前财政部长都提交了一份法庭之友意见书，敦促大法官们支持库克。格林斯潘已于此后去世。
“如果允许政府在面临法律挑战的情况下，首次罢免美联储理事会成员，将削弱公众对美联储独立性的信心，并威胁到我们经济的长期稳定，”这些官员写道。
一些法律专家表示，政府官员可能因为对鲍威尔启动刑事调查而损害了他们在最高法院案件中获胜的机会，这让人觉得特朗普的努力更多是为了重塑美联储董事会，而非任何不当行为。
美国司法部调查了鲍威尔是否就美联储总部25亿美元的翻新工程向国会作出虚假陈述。鲍威尔曾在美联储网站上发布的一段视频中强烈反驳这些指控，称它们是“借口”。今年4月，在一名关键参议员要求撤销调查后，美国司法部撤销了此案，当时特朗普正寻求参议院确认鲍威尔的继任者凯文·沃什。
参议院投票确认了沃什的任命，他于5月宣誓就职。他接替鲍威尔担任美联储主席，但鲍威尔计划留任至2028年任期结束。
“美联储根据我们对最符合公众利益的最佳评估来设定利率，而非遵循总统的偏好，却要面临刑事指控的威胁，”鲍威尔说道。
华盛顿特区的一名联邦法官撤销了与鲍威尔调查相关的两份传票，裁定该调查缺乏依据。美国检察官珍妮特·皮尔罗表示，司法部将对这一裁决提起上诉。
大法官们最近还在两起案件中限制了特朗普扩大总统权力的企图。他们在2月份否决了特朗普的大部分全面关税政策，并在12月份阻止了他向芝加哥部署国民警卫队部队的行动。
这是一则正在跟进的报道，将持续更新。
Supreme Court, for now, blocks Trump from firing Fed board member Lisa Cook
2026-06-29T14:34:42.813Z / The Washington Post
The Supreme Court on Monday blocked President Donald Trump from immediately firing a Democratic appointee to the Federal Reserve Board, a major ruling that preserves the independence of the powerful central bank, which guides the U.S. economy.
The 5-4 decision is a setback for Trump, who has complained that the Fed is not dropping interest rates quickly enough and has pushed aggressively to exert greater control over federal agencies that Congress set up to be insulated from influence by the chief executive.
The justices also ruled Monday on another closely related case. The court decided to overturn a nearly century-old precedent that allows Congress to limit the ability of the president to fire the heads of independent agencies. That ruling ushered in one of the largest changes to the structure of government in decades.
That case arose over Trump’s attempt to remove a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission.
In the case regarding the Fed, the president tried to oust board member Lisa Cook, alleging she committed mortgage fraud, and the Justice Department separately launched — and later dropped — a probe into whether then-Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell gave misleading statements to Congress. Both deny any wrongdoing and accused Trump of seeking to wrest control of the central bank to carry out his policy goals.
Trump’s moves have spooked some economists, who fear keeping interest rates artificially low could unleash long-term inflation. The court challenge has been closely watched by businesses and the markets because of its ramifications for the economy.
A group of justices from across the court’s ideological spectrum ruled Cook could keep her job while a lawsuit challenging her dismissal plays out in the courts. The case could take months or years to resolve and could eventually appear before the high court again on appeal.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by the court’s three liberals as well as conservative Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.
Roberts wrote that Congress had created the Federal Reserve to operate with independence from the president.
“Any change in that scheme must come from Congress, not the courts,” he wrote. “That is why we cannot accept the Government’s contentions in this case. To do so would allow the President to remove a member of the Federal Reserve at any time, for any reason, without any notice before, and without any judicial check after.”
Four of the court’s conservatives objected.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in a dissent that the Supreme Court was premature in taking up Cook’s case. He was joined by fellow conservative Neil M. Gorsuch.
“What is before us is simply an application for a stay pending appeal, and the Court should have granted or denied that application in a brief order last fall,” Alito wrote. “The nascency of this lawsuit and the novelty of the issues that it presents militated against holding oral argument and issuing a comprehensive opinion at this juncture.”
The conservative majority on the Supreme Court has repeatedly embraced Trump’s bids to fire the heads of independent agencies in emergency rulings over the past year.
The majority wrote in its ruling that the Fed has a unique structure that is different from agencies like the National Labor Relations Board that were the subject of earlier cases, so the president does not have the same authority to remove its leaders.
Some legal experts expected the ruling because the justices had telegraphed the logic in a decision in an earlier case, allowing Trump to fire a pair of independent regulators.
Congress created the Fed to be independent of the president, so it could make difficult decisions — such as raising interest rates — that are good for the health of the economy but may not be politically popular. Its mission is to keep prices stable and ensure maximum employment.
Trump is the first president in the Fed’s 112-year history to try to fire one of its board members. In August, Trump alleged that Cook claimed two homes as primary residences to get a better mortgage rate. In filings with the Supreme Court, Cook “unequivocally” denies the allegations, and some documents list one of the properties as a “vacation home.”
Cook, who was initially appointed to the Fed board by President Joe Biden in 2022 and renominated to a 14-year term in 2023, is the first Black woman to hold the position.
The high court case revolved around whether Trump’s attempt to fire Cook complied with the Federal Reserve Act, which says Fed board members can only be ousted “for cause.”
Days after Trump announced on social media in August that he was firing Cook, she sued in federal court. Her suit argues that Trump’s accusations did not meet the standard for “for cause” removal because the allegations occurred before she was on the Fed board and had not been proved. Her attorneys also said she had not been given due process to defend herself.
A federal judge in D.C. sided with Cook, allowing her to remain on the job temporarily. A divided appeals court affirmed that decision, before the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court. The justices ruled in October that Cook could continue at the Fed while they considered her case.
During arguments in January, Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that the mortgage allegations gave Trump reason enough to fire Cook and that the courts did not have the authority to second-guess his determination.
“The American people should not have their interest rates determined by someone who was, at best, grossly negligent in obtaining favorable interest rates for herself,” Sauer said.
Paul D. Clement, an attorney for Cook, said the justices would be rash to rule on the Trump administration’s emergency request to oust Cook from her job without the benefit of additional fact-finding and legal proceedings.
“There is no reason to abandon more than 100 years of central bank independence on an emergency application,” Clement said.
Eight of the nine justices asked probing questions of Sauer’s arguments. Conservative Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh was particularly pointed, telling Sauer his positions in the case “would weaken if not shatter the independence of the Federal Reserve.”
Kavanaugh said presidents could concoct reasons to fire Fed governors with dangerous implications for the central bank. “What are we doing when we have a system that incentivizes that?” Kavanaugh asked.
Both Cook and Powell attended the arguments,as did former Federal Reserve chair Ben S. Bernanke, signaling the importance of the case. Every living former Fed chair at the time — Bernanke, Alan Greenspan and Janet L. Yellen — and six former Treasury secretaries also submitted a friend-of-the-court brief urging the justices to back Cook. Greenspan has since died.
“Allowing the government to remove a member of the Board of Governors for the first time in the nation’s history, while under the cloud of legal challenge, will erode public confidence in the Fed’s independence and threaten the long-term stability of our economy,” the officials wrote.
Some legal experts said administration officials may have damaged their chances at winning the Supreme Court case by launching the criminal probe of Powell, creating the impression that Trump’s efforts were more about reshaping the Fed’s board than any malfeasance.
The Justice Department investigated whether Powell misled Congress about a $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed’s headquarters. Powell has forcefully pushed back on those allegations, calling them “pretexts” in a video posted on the Fed’s website. The Justice Department dropped the case in April after a key senator demanded the move as Trump sought Senate confirmation for a successor to Powell, Kevin Warsh.
The Senate voted to confirm Warsh and he was sworn in in May. He replaces Powell as chair, but Powell plans to remain on the board through the end of his term in 2028.
“The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president,” Powell said.
A federal judge in D.C. quashed a pair of subpoenas tied to the Powell investigation, ruling the inquiry lacked merit. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said the Justice Department would appeal the ruling.
The justices have also recently checked Trump’s bid to enlarge presidential power in two cases. They struck down most of his sweeping tariffs in February and blocked his deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago in December.
This is a developing story and will be updated.