2026-06-29T10:21:00-0400 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
By
Updated on: June 29, 2026 / 11:28 AM EDT / CBS News
华盛顿——最高法院周一允许丽莎·库克继续担任美联储理事会理事，与此同时特朗普总统试图解雇她的法律程序仍在进行中。
最高法院以5票对4票的表决结果驳回了特朗普的诉求，后者试图获得授权将库克从美联储理事职位上罢免，此前有针对她的抵押贷款欺诈指控。特朗普去年9月首次就紧急救济诉求向最高法院提起诉讼，当时大法官们允许库克继续在美联储履职，同时他们将考虑是否暂停下级法院阻止解雇库克的裁决。
如今最高法院维持了下级法院的裁决，库克针对被解雇提起的法律诉讼将继续推进。
首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨为多数方撰写了裁决意见，索尼娅·索托马约尔、埃琳娜·卡根、布雷特·卡瓦诺和凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊大法官加入了该意见。
罗伯茨写道，如果接受政府关于特朗普有权解雇库克的论点，“实际上将把美联储的‘因由保护’制度转变为随意雇佣制——这种解释性飞跃既不符合国会制定的法案，也违背了我国央行免受政治干预的传统。”
最高法院拒绝界定联邦储备法中“正当理由”的具体定义，但表示该定义必须体现央行“独特的历史地位和角色”。
不过最高法院认定，特朗普未能向库克提供法律规定的正当程序保护，具体而言就是在解雇她之前，未向她送达指控通知并给予其回应的机会。
“至少，库克有权获悉相关证据信息、拥有回应渠道，以及明确的回应截止期限，”罗伯茨写道，“由于库克未获得此类程序保障，她的解雇从一开始就是‘错误且无效的’。”
针对这一裁决，特朗普在Truth Social平台上写道，他的政府“将立即采取适当行动，确保犯下不当行为的人不会做出关乎美利坚合众国福祉的重大决策！”
库克被解雇事件
2026年1月21日，美联储理事丽莎·库克离开华盛顿特区最高法院。凯文·迪奇 / 盖蒂图片社
特朗普于去年8月提出解雇库克的动议，这在美联储112年的历史上尚无先例。此举正值特朗普试图解雇一批由民主党任命的多成员独立机构官员，同时特朗普也频繁表达对美联储利率决策的不满。
总统声称，在2021年乔·拜登总统提名库克进入美联储之前，她在两处房产的抵押贷款申请文件中存在虚假陈述，一处位于密歇根州，另一处位于佐治亚州。特朗普在Truth Social平台发布的一封宣布所谓解雇库克的信件中称，他有“充分理由”罢免库克，理由是他所称的“在金融事务中的欺骗性且可能构成犯罪的行为”。
库克否认存在不当行为，且未受到任何刑事指控。她迅速提起诉讼质疑解雇决定，主张特朗普违反了《联邦储备法》。该法案于1913年颁布，授予总统“因有正当理由”罢免美联储理事的权力，但并未对该术语作出定义。
库克还辩称，特朗普的行为侵犯了她的正当程序权利，因为她在被解雇前未收到针对自己的指控通知，也没有机会作出回应。
一名联邦法官下令恢复库克的职务，并认定特朗普未能以正当理由合法罢免她。美国地区法官贾·科布还表示，库克关于自己因未收到通知和听证机会而被剥夺正当程序权利的主张，很有可能在诉讼中获胜。
美国哥伦比亚特区联邦上诉法院由三名法官组成的分歧合议庭继续允许库克留在美联储任职。特朗普政府随后转向最高法院寻求紧急救济。
与其他独立机构官员的情况不同，最高法院在考虑特朗普提出的解雇库克请求期间，允许她继续担任美联储理事。在其他案件中，最高法院允许总统在诉讼进行期间罢免国家劳资关系委员会、功绩制度保护委员会和消费者产品安全委员会的成员。
最高法院还允许特朗普解雇联邦贸易委员会的丽贝卡·斯劳特，并于去年12月就一项联邦法律的合宪性进行了听证，该法律将总统罢免联邦贸易委员会成员的权限限定在效率低下、玩忽职守或在职渎职等情形。
最高法院的此次裁决与它在斯劳特案中作出的有利于特朗普的裁决同时出炉，该裁决扩大了总统对相关机构的行政权力。同样由罗伯茨撰写的裁决意见中，最高法院的保守派多数推翻了联邦贸易委员会成员的罢免保护制度，这一裁决可能对类似机构产生连锁影响。
最高法院此前曾表明，其看待美联储的方式与其他独立机构不同。在2025年5月一项允许特朗普罢免两名劳工委员会成员的裁决中，最高法院特意将央行称为“结构独特的准私营实体，沿袭了第一和第二银行的独特历史传统”。
围绕解雇库克的争议引发了人们的担忧：如果最高法院允许总统罢免库克，将损害美联储的独立性。今年1月的庭审期间，当时的美联储主席杰罗姆·鲍威尔正因美联储华盛顿特区总部翻新事宜受到司法部调查，此事为该案蒙上了阴影。就在最高法院开庭审理库克案的几天前，鲍威尔透露美联储已收到大陪审团传票。
一名联邦法官于3月驳回了这些传票，并于4月初拒绝了司法部恢复传票的请求。负责华盛顿特区办公室调查鲍威尔案件的美国检察官珍妮娜·皮罗随后宣布，其办公室将终止该调查。
特朗普曾多次就降息的范围和时机问题抨击鲍威尔。鲍威尔的美联储主席任期于5月中旬届满，凯文·沃什 shortly after 接任该职位。
Supreme Court rejects Trump’s attempt to fire Fed’s Lisa Cook as legal battle continues
2026-06-29T10:21:00-0400 / CBS News
By
Updated on: June 29, 2026 / 11:28 AM EDT / CBS News
Washington —_ The Supreme Court on Monday allowed Lisa Cook to continue in her post as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors while legal proceedings over President Trump’s attempt to fire her continue.
In a 5 to 4 decision, the high court rejected the president’s bid to allow him to oust Cook from her role as Fed governor following allegations of mortgage fraud. Mr. Trump first came to the Supreme Court for emergency relief last September, and the justices had let Cook remain in her job at the central bank while they considered whether to freeze a lower court decision that blocked her firing.
The Supreme Court has now left that lower court decision intact while Cook’s legal challenge to her removal proceeds.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
To accept the government’s arguments that Mr. Trump can fire Cook “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,” the chief justice wrote.
The court declined to define what constitutes “cause” under the federal law that created the Fed, but said such a definition must reflect the central bank’s “unique historical status and role.”
The Supreme Court did, however, find that Mr. Trump failed to afford Cook the procedural protections that she was entitled to under the law — namely notice and the opportunity to respond to the allegations leveled against her before she was fired.
“At minimum, Cook was entitled to some explanation of the evidence at issue, some avenue for a response, and a deadline by which a response would be due,” Roberts wrote. “Because Cook did not receive such process, her removal was ‘erroneous and void’ from the start.”
In response to the decision, Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social that his administration “will take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the Welfare of the United States of America!”
Cook’s firing
Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook leaves the Supreme Court on Jan. 21, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images
Mr. Trump moved to fire Cook from the Fed Board last August, a move that was without precedent across the central bank’s 112-year history. It came amid similar efforts to fire officials appointed by Democrats at a slew of multi-member independent agencies, and as Mr. Trump frequently voiced frustrations with the Fed’s interest rate decisions.
The president claimed Cook made misrepresentations on mortgage filings related to two properties, one in Michigan and another in Georgia, before she was nominated to the Fed by President Joe Biden in 2021. In a letter posted to Truth Social announcing her purported firing, Mr. Trump said he had “sufficient cause” to remove Cook because of what he claimed was “deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter.”
Cook has denied wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime. She swiftly filed a lawsuit to challenge her removal, arguing that Mr. Trump violated the Federal Reserve Act. That law, enacted in 1913, gives the president the authority to remove a Fed governor “for cause,” though the term is not defined.
Cook also argued Mr. Trump’s actions violated her due process rights because she was not afforded notice of the claims against her and the opportunity to respond before she was fired.
A federal judge ordered Cook to be reinstated and found that Mr. Trump had not validly removed her for cause. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb also said Cook was likely to succeed on her argument that she was deprived of her due-process rights because she did not receive notice and the opportunity to be heard.
A divided panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia continued to allow Cook to remain at the Fed. The Trump administration then turned to the Supreme Court for emergency relief.
Unlike with officials at other independent agencies, the Supreme Court let Cook continue in her position as a Fed governor while it considered whether to grant Mr. Trump’s request to fire her. In other cases, the high court allowed the president to remove members of the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board and Consumer Product Safety Commission while they pursued litigation.
The Supreme Court also let Mr. Trump fire Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission and heard arguments in December over the constitutionality of a federal law that limits the president’s ability to remove members of the FTC to instances of inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.
The decision from the Supreme Court came at the same time that it ruled in the president’s favor in the Slaughter case, expanding executive power over those bodies. In an opinion also authored by Roberts, the court’s conservative majority struck down removal protections for members of the FTC, a ruling that could have ramifications for similar agencies.
The high court had indicated before that it views the Fed differently than other independent agencies. In a May 2025 decision allowing Mr. Trump to oust two members of the two labor boards, the Supreme Court singled out the central bank as a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks.”
The dispute over Cook’s firing raised concerns that a decision from the Supreme Court allowing her removal by the president would damage the Fed’s independence. Looming over the arguments in January was a Justice Department investigation into then-Fed Chairman Jerome Powell stemming from renovations to the central bank’s Washington, D.C., headquarters. Days before the Supreme Court convened to weigh Cook’s case, Powell revealed that the central bank had received grand jury subpoenas.
A federal judge blocked the subpoenas in March and rejected Justice Department efforts to revive them in early April. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, whose office in Washington, D.C., was leading the investigation involving Powell, then announced her office would be closing the probe.
Mr. Trump had repeatedly attacked Powell over the scope and timing of interest-rate cuts. Powell’s term as Fed chairman expired in mid-May, and Kevin Warsh took over the role shortly after.