 |
| Le Nhu Ngoc Tran (Whittier College), Amza Togore (Trinity College) and Riley McGlynn (Siena College) at the US Supreme Court |
On January 21st, 2026, I and my fellow interns at Creative Investment Research attended Oral Arguments at the Supreme Court of the United States concerning Trump v. Cook. The purpose of the oral arguments was to determine whether Donald Trump's attempts to fire Lisa Cook from her position as Governor of the Federal Reserve were lawful. The defense for this firing rested on allegations of mortgage fraud.
My perspective on how the Court operates, and specifically how they operated during this case is that it overall is smooth and straight to the point, getting deep into the case. The Justices asked thorough and relevant questions during the proceeding, while making sure the lawyers appearing before them remained on topic, clear and concise. To give an example, early on during the argument by D. John Sauer the solicitor general and the man defending Donald Trump didn't give a clear answer to a question and was subsequently called out by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: “I guess I think you may have to be a little bit more specific with respect to the irreparable harm that you are alleging… to what extent do we believe that the president or the public is harmed by allowing Ms. Cook to remain in her position for the pendency of this case?” Throughout the hearing there were plenty of instances when the Justices called out evasive language and behavior.
I do have one issue with the way some of the Justices operated: I believe it was clear that some Justices displayed a bias towards one party. Justice Clarence Thomas for example, seemed to be not listening, leaning far back in his chair most of the time that Solicitor General, Mr. Sauer, was speaking. In fact, according to the transcript of the hearing, Justice Thomas only spoke once during Mr. Sauer’s presentation. But, once the lawyer for Fed Governor Lisa Cook, Paul Clement, gave his opening, Justice Thomas was the first to speak and was lively and instantly on the offensive. Justice Thomas is considered a more conservative Justice, and I believe this is proof of that conservative bias getting in the way of his legal assessment.
Overall, the Justices were clear in their questioning, specifically detailing what they wanted to know. They got all the information possible from the lawyers. With some bias Justice members may have I still believe this court can get this case right, as they seemed lean towards allowing Lisa Cook to stay on as Federal Reserve Board Governor.The bias observed is, however, a concern with respect to the way the Justices reach conclusions in more partisan cases. While this case is obviously controversial, many conservative voices on the bench seem to be in favor of limiting Trump in his attempt to fire Lisa Cook. I believe the Court is correctly reviewing this case.
Editor: William Michael Cunningham