Amicus Brief Involving SRL Leaders Cited in Trump v. Cook Concurring Opinion

Writing a concurring opinion in the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Cook, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson cited an amicus brief joined by several Society for the Rule of Law board and charter members. 

In “Brief of Amici Curiae Former Government Officials And Advisors Opposing The Stay Application,” SRL leaders urged the Supreme Court to uphold the preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Trump Administration’s firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Amici curiae include SRL’s Board President Alan Raul, Board Members Donald Ayer, Barbara Comstock, and the Hon. J. Michael Luttig, Charter Members The Hon. Mickey Edwards and Stanley A. Twardy Jr., and SRL Members Ty Cobb and Robert Shanks. 

The brief argues that the preliminary injunction should remain in effect because Cook’s firing would immediately upend the financial system’s status quo and harm the public interest, and because the Administration’s case is unlikely to succeed on the merits. The brief describes how allowing Cook’s firing to proceed would threaten global financial stability: 

Allowing the President to remove Governor Cook at his discretion would expose U.S. monetary policy, and the entire world economy, to profound instability. The Fed’s independence is the bedrock of global confidence in U.S. financial leadership. Undermining that independence could trigger lasting doubt in the stability of American institutions. Allowing Governor Cook to be removed now, without even full merits review, would send an unmistakable signal that the Federal Reserve is vulnerable to political control—especially if, as the Administration urges, “cause” means nothing more than a President’s reviewable whim. On the Administration’s reading, after all, the President could replace the entire Board, claiming a pretextual cause that no court could gainsay. The unprecedented disruption—and the very real threat of further, ongoing disruption, at least every four years—would deeply injure the public interest, inflicting harms that preclude the Administration from coming close to demonstrating that the equities favor relief.

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled against the Administration’s application for a stay, retaining Lisa Cook in office while the District Court decides this case on the merits. Justice Jackson wrote a concurring opinion and cited the SRL members’ amicus brief, agreeing that staying the preliminary injunction against Cook’s removal would harm the public interest. She writes:

The public’s interest is not served if a President can intimidate members of the Federal Reserve into doing his bidding. Experience has taught that high inflation, price variability, and, ultimately, financial panic can result when the Federal Reserve is subjected to rank politicization. See id., at 14–16; ante, at 5. Indeed, even the mere perception of partisan influence over that body can trigger these disastrous consequences. See Brief for Former Treasury Secretaries et al. as Amici Curiae 9. Allowing Governor Lisa Cook “to be removed now, without even full merits review, would send an unmistakable signal that the Federal Reserve is vulnerable” to exactly this kind of influence. Brief for Former Government Officials et al. as Amici Curiae 10. 

Trump v. Cook, 609 U.S. _, _(2026) (Jackson, J., concurring).

Read the full brief here. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].