[Excerpts from an excellent analysis on the origins of the Federal Reserve Rules and how this affects the Cook firing by POTUS for CAUSE. According to this article Cook's attorney (Abby Lowell) cannot bring her case before the Court, and the Court cannot hear the case - even though Powell (who is trying to tie the firing to the Court) has released a statement that he will abide by the Court's decision. It also suggests that Powell himself could be fired "for cause" without Court participation.]
When Congress Wrote the Fed Rules, Courts Weren’t Invited
Aug 27 2025 (lengthy article)
What “For Cause” Meant in the Room Where It Happened
Senator Glass was explicit about the balance Congress was striking. The Fed, he insisted, was never meant to be hermetically sealed from politics. If the Board pursued a course “manifestly damaging to the public interests,” a newly elected President could, “for cause stated in writing,” dismiss members and “change its policy.”
–
The president is not an administrative agency subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. There is no built-in procedural scaffold to plug into. The undefined “for cause” standard is open-textured by design, supplying a duty of reason-giving rather than a blueprint for judicial trials. From a textualist perspective, there are no statutory grounds for the judiciary to create a procedure and police what counts as cause. The question of whether the president has met the burden of removing an official for “cause” is what the Supreme Court refers to as “nonjusticiable,” meaning not a matter for the courts to decide.
Even if you’re unmoved by originalism or textualism, a commonsense, functional reading points the same way. “For cause” is an open-ended standard meant to preserve the state’s capacity to govern: the president must state a reason tethered to the office’s purposes—financial integrity, competence, public trust—but courts shouldn’t turn that into a criminal-style proceeding or a running audit of motives. The real safeguards are structural and political, not judicial. If abuse occurs, the sensible correction is ex post and modest (declaratory relief or back pay), not an injunction that puts the court in charge of who is serving on the Fed.
Why This History Matters in the Cook Fight
Viewed through the 1935 lens, today’s dispute comes into sharp focus. The Fed really is different from other agencies: the President must state cause, and at-will firing is off the table. But “for cause” here means the flexible standard Congress adopted in 1935, not the FTC’s restrictive checklist that Humphrey’s Executor had just upheld.
In 1935, a Democratic Congress facing a hostile Supreme Court and a discredited Federal Reserve wrote a removal rule that constrained naked political firings without inviting judges to micromanage presidential personnel decisions. Lawmakers restored “for cause,” required written reasons, and relied on structural safeguards to protect monetary independence.
That is the standard on the books today. Measured against the history, the text, and the institutional logic, the legal ground in the Lisa Cook dispute tilts toward presidential discretion, not judicial oversight of central bank staffing.
https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2025/08/27/breitbart-business-digest-when-congress-wrote-the-fed-rules-courts-werent-invited/