Trump DOJ Files Blistering Response To Lisa Cook Lawsuit

The Justice Department has filed a response to Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook’s lawsuit over her Monday firing – claiming that the President has “broad discretion to remove a Governor for “cause” over allegations of mortgage fraud (with a third property disclosed by Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte last night), and that Cook is “highly unlikely to prevail on the merits.” 

The Federal Reserve Act (FRA) empowers the President of the United States to appoint (by and with the advice and consent of the Senate) the members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 12 U.S.C. § 241. Those Governors serve for fixed terms, “unless sooner removed for cause by the President.” Id. § 242. The statute thus expressly contemplates that, even setting aside his Article II authority over principal officers, the President retains broad discretion to remove a Governor for “cause.”

According to the DOJ, “Dr. Cook is highly unlikely to prevail on the merits. Removal for “cause” is a capacious standard, and one Congress has vested in the discretion of the President. Even if it were subject to any judicial review—and over a century of caselaw suggests it is not—that review would have to be highly deferential, lest it intrude into the President’s constitutional authority over principal officers.” 

To wit, “And under any standard, making facially contradictory statements in financial documents – whether a criminal burden of proof could be sustained or not – is more than sufficient ground for removing a senior financial regulator from office.” 

In response to Cook’s claims that she was ‘deprived of notice’ and an opportunity to respond to the President’s concern over allegations of mortgage fraud, the DOJ notes that “no court has ever extended those due-process protections for employees to principal officers of the United States. Nor does the FRA purport to do so. In any case, the President gave Dr. Cook notice when he publicized the FHFA referral on August 20.” 

The DOJ also notes that Cook has no explanation for the allegations.

Incredibly, Dr. Cook even now hazards no explanation for her conduct and points to nothing she would say or prove in any “hearing” that would conceivably alter the President’s determination that the perception of financial misconduct alone is intolerable in this role. Under these circumstances, there is certainly no equitable basis for a reinstatement injunction.

Addressing Cook’s request for an injunction on her filing, the response asserts that recent decisions from the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit leave no doubt that reinstatement injunctions are improper.

Developing…

See below:

Filings Cook v TRUMP Et Al Cook v TRUMP Et Al Dcdce-25-02903 0013.0 by Zerohedge