Thread by @innercitypress

OK - now at Lisa Cook v. Trump, seeking temporary restraining order against being removed from Federal Reserve Board for listing two residences as primary. Inner City Press covers the Fed (and courts) and will live tweet, thread below

[Programming note: the listed public access number for Cook v. Trump, after saying "Welcome to a Cisco meeting" & entering call ID - immediately hangs up. Or once said, "The meeting is over." They should have put audio on YouTube like DC Circuit. Will keep trying

[Finally got in]
Judge Cobb: Is it your position that Governor Cook is like an employee, with a property interest in the position, unlike an elected official? This is a unique position, it's not a Government employee--

Judge: So you are suggesting just notice and an opportunity to rebut before a decision is made, as a minimum
A: Let's say the allegations against Governor Cook is made, by Pulte- it's before that person we should have a chance to be heard, not in the Oval Office

Judge Cobb: Let's talk irreparable harm - there are cases saying that not continuing in such a position may not be irreparable.
A: The Federal Reserve is unique. This person took an oath, to operate independently- you are taking away from me the right to do my job

Judge Cobb: There are cases saying that the inability to carry out statutory functions is not irreparable harm. But you are saying this body is different
A: Governor Cook along with her brothers and sisters have only for-cause removal, we believe it is irreparable

Judge Cobb: You are saying that if the President replaces her, it is irreparable?
A: The President said just a few days ago that he will have a majority on the Board. The Senate has not exactly been doing advise and consent. This is irreparable

Judge Cobb: Is there any authority, you can put in in your reply, where the interim relief was reinstatement?
A: There was Judge Ali, I'll look and put it in our supplement.
Judge: If I were to grant preliminary relief, what is the remedy? You've named the Chair

Cook's lawyer: If President Trump said Cook is fired but no one acted on it, I wouldn't have to be here. So we named Chair Powell.
Judge Cobb: I'm thinking of the DC Circuit's decision in the Dellinger case - they said it was not irreparable

Cook's lawyer: What is she being deprived of? It's more than the paycheck. She is committed to the independence of the Federal Reserve Board. If we've gotten there, we need to tell everyone that the status quo stays the same. Keep her electronics on

Cook's lawyer: I was struck by the Government's brief, they want to apply to President's power to the Federal Reserve - the signer said something different in the Harris case.
Judge Cobb: Let me hear from the Government. I have questions about cause

Judge Cobb: You agree that a difference in policy view is not cause. So anything that relates to the person's views is off limits?
DOJ lawyer: I wouldn't go that far, someone might engage in abuse.
Judge Cobb: Given what plaintiff says about the Fed being unique

DOJ lawyer: That's why the President in the removal letter said you are being removed for cause, not just, removed. The case law says that cause is discretionary and not reviewable-
Judge Cobb: So any reason at all?
DOJ: If it calls into question ability to serve

Judge Cobb: What is reviewable in this context?
DOJ lawyer: A person could say, I'm entitled to cause, you didn't give you. But if you have a cause, the only question is whether it's just a policy disagreement
Judge: Is that reviewable?
DOJ: Not sure, under Reagan

Judge Cobb: I'm uncomfortable if a person says, I want a majority on the board, then comes up with reasons.
DOJ lawyer: How are you going to tell? The courts don't do that. Until this referral came up, I'm not aware of any statement by President Trump on Dr. Cook

DOJ lawyer: They have been very careful in their brief not to say what actually happened, with this contradictory representation of two primary residences at the same time-
Judge Cobb: What if the reason for removal is a pretext?
DOJ lawyer: Not the case here

DOJ lawyer: Here a senior regulator made contradictory statements about residences- and a week later, no explanation.
Judge Cobb: You say that she didn't respond to the social media post in five days so the President acted. Does that satisfy due process?
DOJ: Yes.

Judge Cobb: How did she know she had five days?
DOJ lawyer: She didn't respond in any way. No communications to the President at all.
Judge Cobb: What would the procedure look like? Doesn't a person have to be given information?
DOJ: This is not civil service

DOJ lawyer: She didn't say, That's not my signature. I think if there was something like that, we would have heard it. So what would it mean to say, the President should hear her out. I haven't heard what the story is that she would want to share

Judge Cobb: What if it's something the President knew, and the Senate knew? If so it feels weird that an Administration could go back & second guess the Senate-
DOJ lawyer: That's not the case here. Cause bears on the individual's ability and fitness to do the job

Judge Cobb: What would we do, Depose the White House officials who vetted her?
DOJ lawyer: That's a hard no.
Judge Cobb: This Board is unique. I understand why elected officials don't have a property interest. But this is closer to an employee

DOJ lawyer: The harm of having someone in office that is wrongfully there outweighs the harm of losing the position
Judge Cobb: Let me go back to due process - there are cases that seem to equate having a for-cause requirement with a property interest

[fwiw, in the middle of this argument, just got in an interim Freedom of Information Act response from the Federal Reserve Board

DOJ lawyer: The remedy here would be tricky. What would a hearing accomplish?
Judge Cobb: I don't know if they are saying a hearing is required.
DOJ lawyer: Hey, send a letter and maybe the President would change his mind. But they haven't made any showing

Judge Cobb: Deferential doesn't mean there is no probing of it, or no review. What does it look like?
DOJ lawyer: When the President is statutorily empowered to make a determination and makes it, that's it. Maybe in some extreme case. But not here. Trump v. Hawaii

Judge Cobb: Plaintiff?
Cook's lawyer: Your Honor, it's not different if the President just puts in the word cause next to Article II doesn't make it better. The President said what he meant, on August 26, If she acted properly - he then talked about interest rates

Cook's lawyer: Could the President remove her for wearing a pants suit? For teaching in a DEI college? Is that cause? I used the word pretext cautiously. They say he said things about Chairman Powell not Governor Cook. He swung at the person at the plate

Cook's lawyer: It was just a Pulte posting on Social Media, about 2 different entries- I don't accept his representation that they are contradictory, at least not here. This is about the TRO. As I said when I rose to the podium the first time, I avoid social media

Cook's lawyer: The President gave her 30 minutes - 30 minutes! After the tweet, the President said, If she doesn't resign - not answer or explain, but resign - then I will fire her. That is not due process. And there is the question, Where should that take place

Cook's lawyer: Was she supposed to respond to him publicly, on social media? That is not due process. I can assure you that the Senate reviewed bank records, they had the opportunity to look. A new President should not undo it

Cook's lawyer: Delliger was allowed to remain in office during the review. Here, they say she had five days to respond to a tweet, that's enough - that's not the case. We are in a unique situation with the Fed - they acknowledged that in the NLRB and other case

DOJ lawyer: Just to say, counsel focuses on the August 26 statement, I think it was on YouTube, I understood that President Trump was saying that if the press had done its job we wouldn't have Lisa Cook on the Fed. It was not an acknowledgment of any pretext

DOJ lawyer: Dellinger was temporarily allowed to stay until the DC Circuit overturned that.
Judge: On cheduling, you're going to file a reply on Tuesday. Should I ask you to confer? Is this now a preliminary injunction require? Or should it be summary judgment?

Cook's lawyer: Their position seems to be, let this play out for next three to seven days - meanwhile the President appoints someone else.
Judge Cobb: I'll need time - I'll give you an opportunity to supplement, try to do it on Tuesday.

Adjourned.
[Story coming - If like and can, support:
paypal.com/paypalme/matth…
venmo.com/u/Matthew-Lee-…
buymeacoffee.com/innercitypress
w/ extras, like on X for Subscribers: matthewrussellleeicp.substack.com
w/ docs: patreon.com/MatthewRussell…
Trump Verdict book  amazon.com/Trump-Trial-Ma…