Supreme Court Expands President’s Authority To Fire Officials of Independent Agencies
The Supreme Court at least temporarily blocked the firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in one of two rulings last week that redefined leadership control of independent federal agencies.
President Donald Trump tried to fire Cook on allegations of mortgage fraud.
Cook argued that as a member of an independent agency, the president lacked authority to fire her.
Cook is one of seven governors on the Federal Reserve Board, which supervises banks, oversees monetary policy and seeks to stabilize the U.S. financial system.
The Supreme Court largely agreed with Cook, but only in the short-term.
The majority opinion written by the chief justice said the president failed to follow established procedures in trying to fire Cook. She still could be fired, but only after due process procedures that require proving in court that she committed mortgage fraud, the Court said.
The 5-to-4 ruling only narrowly backed up the idea that independent agencies should be free of the political influence of a presidential administration. It left open the possibility a president could start the procedures to get governors on the Federal Reserve Board fired for misconduct.
Cook says Trump wanted to fire her for resisting his demands that the Federal Reserve Board lower interest rates to boost economic development. She claims the mortgage fraud allegations hid his true motives of reprisal.
Trump pledged to push on in his effort to fire Cook in a post on social media after the Supreme Court ruling.
“The Cook Lawsuit, having to do with her suitability in sitting on the Board of the Federal Reserve, was sent back by the Supreme Court on a strictly procedural basis, we 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,” Trump wrote.
An independent agency is a federal agency created by Congress. Federal courts have flip-flopped on whether agency leaders are protected by law from being removed by the president.
The key issue in Cook’s case is whether the president could fire her when the Federal Reserve Board was created by Congress under authorities that require a majority vote of Congress to remove its governors.
The Trump administration argued that agencies fall under the executive branch of government, meaning the president controls them and their leadership.
The Supreme Court ruling said, "Acceptance of the Government's position 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."
Cook was accused of claiming two properties she owns as her primary residence on mortgage documents. Prosecutors said she lied to obtain favorable mortgage terms.
She denied the allegations, saying any discrepancy was at most an inadvertent paperwork notation that does not constitute fraud.
Cook repeated her claim that she was a victim of revenge after the Supreme Court ruling. She said in a statement that Trump was trying “to remove me on a manufactured pretext because I refused to bow to political pressure and continued to set interest rates based only on what would best serve the American people.”
The Supreme Court was less protective of Rebecca Slaughter, a former commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission.
She was appointed to the Federal Trade Commission in 2018 by former President Joe Biden but fired by Trump last year. A White House statement said her service was "inconsistent with the Administration's priorities."
Like Cook, Slaughter said the president could not fire her because she was a member of an independent agency.
The Supreme Court sided with Trump in a ruling that expanded presidential authority to remove officials from many independent agencies, but not the Federal Reserve Board.
The Court’s 6-to-3 ruling said that agency officials who exercise authority on behalf of the executive branch of government must be accountable to the president.
“The president may remove his subordinates at will,” the Slaughter case ruling said.
The Court said the Federal Trade Commission and other agencies were not comparable to the Federal Reserve Board because of its unique historical and central role in controlling monetary policy.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Supreme Court Upholds State Bans on Transgender Athletes in Girls' Sports
The Supreme Court ruled last week that states can bar transgender athletes from girls’ school sports.
The ruling results from challenges to bans in West Virginia and Idaho but applies equally to 25 other states with similar restrictions.
The lawsuit, West Virginia v. B.P.J., was filed by transgender students Becky Pepper-Jackson in West Virginia and Lindsay Hecox in Idaho.
They challenged the state law bans under Title IX, a federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. They also argued that barring athletes because of their preferred gender identity violated their rights to Equal Protection under the U.S. Constitution.
Attorneys general for West Virginia and Idaho argued that biological differences between the sexes justify separate athletic competitions to protect competitive equity and safety.
Proponents of the bans say transgender women have sometimes used their greater strength to injure biological women during competition. The allegations are disputed.
The attorneys general also said the bans restore the original intent of Title IX, namely to ensure biological women have safe options to secure scholarships and to advance their careers.
A 6-to-3 majority of the Supreme Court supported the state laws.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that "Title IX allows schools to provide separate women's and men's sports teams defined by biological sex."
He wrote that sex or gender "cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex."
He added that the Constitution and federal law "do not require an overhaul of women's and girls' sports throughout America."
The decision is a major victory for states that said their restrictions against transgender athletes preserve competitive fairness and athletic opportunities for female athletes.
The ruling leaves room for states that want to continue allowing transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports. They are not required to change their laws.
Civil rights advocates for the LGBTQ+ community described the ruling as troubling.
Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project, said in a statement, “This is a heartbreaking ruling for our clients and transgender girls like them who've asked for nothing more than the same opportunities afforded to their peers. The reality is that the equality of transgender women and girls takes nothing away from, and in fact promotes, the equality of all women and girls.”
Sasha Buchert, senior attorney at Lambda Legal, said, “This ruling is deeply harmful for transgender women and girls who only asked for the ability to participate in sports with their peers... Now, one population, transgender youth and collegians, are targeted for specific and baseless discrimination.”
The Supreme Court ruling only lightly defined sex differences, which the three dissenting justices mentioned as a potentially confounding issue. The majority said sex was defined as the objective distinction between male and female based on reproductive biology.
The ruling did not discuss related issues of chromosomes and internal and external reproductive anatomy that various state courts have considered in determining gender.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the dissent that the ruling decided a difficult constitutional issue too broadly and without allowing the lower courts to fully develop the factual record.
"This litigation implicates deeply sensitive, contentious, and evolving issues,” she wrote. “These circumstances demand exercising judicial restraint, not rushing to answer conclusively difficult questions without sufficient evidentiary development."
Recent popular opinion polls show a strong preference toward banning transgender children and teenagers from participating in girls’ sports.
Virginia, Maryland, or the District of Columbia has a law banning transgender girls or women from participating in girls' or women's school sports.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Former CIA Director Brennan Sues Justice Dept. Ahead of Potential Criminal Charges
Former CIA Director John Brennan is suing the Justice Department as part of an effort to prevent criminal charges from being filed against him.
He is seeking a court order that requires government attorneys to preserve any evidence they compiled against him for review by a federal judge.
Brennan helped investigate the 2016 Trump presidential campaign for possible ties to Russian officials accused of trying to influence the election. He served as CIA director from 2013 to 2017 during the Obama administration.
He says he is now being targeted for reprisal on charges that his legal team calls "phantom criminal conduct."
Brennan’s attorneys said in the lawsuit filed last week that they want the Justice Department investigatory files to prove that revenge – not criminal justice – is the government’s hidden motive.
If true, the allegation would represent vindictive or selective prosecution. It is a violation of 14th Amendment rights to equal protection under the law. It also is a basis for a judge to dismiss criminal charges.
“This administration has adopted a policy of using criminal process and prosecution to punish the President’s perceived adversaries,” Brennan’s lawsuit says. “It is against this backdrop that the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John O. Brennan, is being vindictively singled out for investigation and prosecution.”
The Justice Department is declining comment on any evidence in the lawsuit. A statement from the agency said that “it is certainly rich that John Brennan is accusing anyone of a ‘retribution campaign.’”
The comment appears to imply hypocrisy after President Donald Trump and other Republicans accused the Biden administration of “weaponizing” the Justice Department against them.
Brennan’s attempt at preemption results from a referral to the Justice Department by the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. He accused Brennan of lying when he testified in 2023 that there never was a Democratic conspiracy to undercut Trump’s presidential campaign by allegations of collusion with the Russians.
Republicans also raised concerns over special counsel Jack Smith’s attempt to prosecute Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents and for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Since then, the U.S. attorney in Miami has been interviewing former U.S. intelligence officials about a “deep state” conspiracy that might have violated Trump’s civil rights.
Top Justice Department officials have been hinting that Brennan could be the target of an indictment soon.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was asked about a Brennan investigation during a recent appearance on Sean Hannity’s podcast.
“I’m not giving away state secrets,” Blanche said.
Brennan’s attorneys acknowledge that seeking a preemptive court order is an unusual request but said so is the nature of the Justice Department trying to prosecute government officials for revenge. They listed attempted but failed prosecutions of former Federal Reserve chair Jerome H. Powell and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) as other examples.
“In light of this Justice Department’s highly irregular conduct, courts now recognize that it no longer deserves the presumption of regularity in certain categories of cases, and in particular in those against the president’s perceived adversaries,” Brennan’s lawsuit says.
The legal team is asking for internal emails, memoranda, witness statements and other communications gathered by Justice Department attorneys.
The lawsuit added, “Government conduct in this case makes it abundantly clear that the driving force behind the investigations targeting Director Brennan is the President’s obsession with punishing him for his lawful conduct as CIA Director and for his constitutionally protected criticism of the President and the President’s policies.”
The case is Brennan v. Trump, et al. in U.S. District Court for the District Columbia. It is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Virginia Uses Speed Limiting Technology to Control High Risk Drivers
Virginia became the first state in the nation this month to allow courts to require speed limiting technology on vehicles of high risk drivers.
The technology consists of a hardware unit roughly the size of a deck of cards that can be installed onto a vehicle’s electronic throttle control.
It also represents a transition from passive enforcement, such as speeding tickets and traffic signs, to real-time intervention. The Virginia General Assembly established the Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) Program under House Bill 2096.
The bill's sponsor, Delegate Patrick Hope (D), said the program is a safety solution that controls high risk drivers while allowing them to maintain mobility for essential needs like work, school, and childcare.
The device uses real-time GPS mapping data to track a vehicle’s coordinates, constantly cross-referencing its location with a localized speed limit database. When a driver reaches the speed limit, the system caps acceleration after a few seconds, preventing the engine from generating the power required to speed up.
The software includes a brief built-in buffer, allowing a few seconds of additional throttle to allow a driver safely complete a passing maneuver before the electronic ceiling re-engages.
Costs of the hardware installation and monitoring would be paid by each defendant after conviction.
The ISA program continues Virginia’s tradition of strict traffic enforcement. Speeds 20 mph over the limit or exceeding 85 mph can be treated by Virginia courts as a criminal Class 1 misdemeanor reckless driving charge.
The ISA program is targeted at specific kinds of drivers, such as “super-speeders” caught driving over 100 mph, repeat offenders who accumulate 18 Department of Motor Vehicle demerit points in one year, and street racers with four convictions for street racing or exhibition driving.
Attempts to tamper with the equipment or to disable it can be prosecuted as a separate Class 1 misdemeanor charge, carrying a maximum penalty of 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine.
Supporting evidence for the legislation was a AAA Club Alliance report that nearly 45 percent of Virginia's 918 road deaths in 2024 resulted from excessive speed.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Judge Grants Last-Minute Injunction to Block Education Dept. Loan Limits
Caps on Department of Education loans for graduate students that were scheduled to take effect last week were blocked by a last-minute federal court ruling in Washington, D.C.
The nationwide preliminary injunction rescues access to higher borrowing limits for hundreds of thousands of graduate students.
U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell sided with a coalition of healthcare and educational trade groups in ruling that the Department of Education likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act by concocting its own highly restrictive eligibility criteria for the loans.
Plaintiffs included the American Association of Nurse Practitioners and the Physician Assistant Education Association. They argued that the Education Department’s guidelines could shut some students out of vital, high-demand medical fields.
The guidelines would slash their federal financial aid by more than half.
The legal battle resulted from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed by Congress in July 2025. It restructured federal financial aid by eliminating the Grad PLUS Loan Program, which allowed graduate students to borrow up to the full cost of their educational programs.
Under the revisions, only students pursuing degrees in 11 legal, medical or theological programs could qualify for the full cost loans.
Dozens of other high-cost, advanced fields were classified as standard graduate programs, capping their federal loan access at $20,500 a year.
Howell said the revised guidelines could cause "adverse effects on staffing in healthcare and education, diversity in the workforce, rural and underserved communities, and working families."
The ruling forces the Education Department to abandon its exclusive 11-field list and apply a broader definition to eligibility for full-cost loans as the dispute heads to a trial.
"By attempting to classify advanced practice nursing as a standard graduate degree rather than a distinct medical profession, the Department threatened to construct devastating financial barriers for students trying to enter a field facing severe, nationwide provider shortages," said Stephen A. Ferrara, president of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, in a statement.
The Education Department said it is reviewing the decision and would take “appropriate action.”
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.