Supreme Court Conservatives Have Downplayed Trump’s Conduct — a New Fed Case Might Change That

With input from Reuters, FOX News, and CNN.

For years, conservative justices on the Supreme Court have often steered clear of harsh critiques of Donald Trump’s behavior – whether in cases about election challenges, presidential immunity or disputes over documents and pardons. But a fresh fight over the Federal Reserve and one of its governors may be pushing those boundaries, forcing even the court’s conservative wing to confront the substance of Trump’s conduct more directly.

At issue is a challenge to Trump’s decision to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from her seat – a rare clash between the White House and the US central bank. The case, argued earlier this week, has prompted unusually pointed questioning from several justices about presidential power, norms and the rule of law.

Historically, conservatives on the high court have leaned toward expansive views of executive authority and have generally shied away from openly condemning Trump’s actions, even when other institutions or lower courts have found fault. That trend showed up in past cases involving Trump’s claims to immunity or efforts to block congressional subpoenas.

But during arguments in the Fed case, that restraint appeared to soften. Several justices – including some considered part of the court’s conservative bloc – asked sharp questions about the implications of letting a president oust an independent regulator without clear cause. The line of questioning suggested concern about unchecked presidential authority and the long-term risks to institutional independence.

One line of inquiry focused on the traditional understanding that Fed governors have protections against arbitrary removal precisely to shield monetary policy from political pressure. Justices probed whether allowing the president to fire a governor at will – as Trump’s action implied – could set a dangerous precedent that extends beyond the Fed.

Part of what makes this dispute stand out is its real-world impact. The Federal Reserve sits at the center of the economy, steering interest rates and managing financial stability. Removing a governor without firm legal footing isn’t just a legal technicality – it has ripple effects that could affect markets, jobs and prices. That’s a broader, more concrete hook than some of the abstract immunity or privilege questions from past Trump-era cases.

Supporters of the Fed’s independence, including some legal analysts and conservative scholars, have filed amicus briefs urging the court to take a hard look at the potential consequences of unfettered presidential removal power. One unusual filing argued that the case could “sway” justices because it touches on basic checks and balances that go beyond any one administration.

It’s worth noting that while the justices’ questions have been pointed, the court hasn’t overtly framed the dispute as a personal rebuke of Trump. Instead, the focus has largely stayed on legal doctrine: statutory text, historical practice, separation of powers and institutional stability. But there’s a clear through-line to Trump’s pattern of pushing institutional limits – from courts to Congress to executive agencies.

And in internal deliberations, several justices have reportedly wrestled with whether this isn’t just another academic argument about statutory language, but a chance to set clearer boundaries on presidential reach. If that perspective gains traction, it could make this case a defining moment in how the modern court views executive authority.

Analysts say the Supreme Court’s eventual decision could have ripple effects well beyond the Fed. A ruling that reinforces protections for independent agency officials might rebalance the tug-of-war between the executive branch and institutions meant to stand apart from politics. Conversely, a broad bow to Trump’s action could embolden future presidents to test the limits of their power again and again.

For now, the justices are hearing out arguments and wrestling – publicly and privately – with how to draw those lines. But at least in the courtroom, there’s a sense this isn’t business as usual: even conservative voices are grappling with questions that put Trump’s conduct –and its broader implications – squarely in view.