Amidst allegations of potential mortgage fraud made by the Trump administration to potentially justify the removal of Federal Reserve Board governor Lisa Cook, she has hired legal support and initiated legal proceedings to protect her reputation and the “independence” of the U.S. central bank and its monetary policy-making functions.

The lawsuit filed at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Thursday claims that Trump attempted to dismiss Cook using a pretext. This supposed pretext includes allegations of criminal mortgage fraud, which were based on claims by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, who referred the matter to the DOJ.

According to the referral, Pulte accused Cook of “fabricating bank documents and property records to secure more advantageous loan conditions, potentially engaging in mortgage fraud,” by listing two residences as her main home, akin to accusations previously faced by Trump adversary Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

We have accessed a document in which Lisa Cook, while serving as Federal Reserve Governor, communicated to the U.S. Government. Dated February 28, 2023, it indicates her representation to the U.S. Government that the property in Atlanta is her PRIMARY RESIDENCE.

However, Lisa Cook, as a then-sitting Fed… pic.twitter.com/clclhtag9O

— Pulte (@pulte) August 22, 2025

pic.twitter.com/02eLAz4Opq

— Pulte (@pulte) August 28, 2025

Cook, for her part, reportedly said in a statement that she was not fired and would not go.

In response to the situation, her statement reportedly declared, “President Trump claimed to dismiss me ‘for cause’ when no legitimate cause under the law exists, and beyond that, he lacks the authority to do so,” she reportedly stated. “I refuse to step down. I will persist in fulfilling my responsibilities to foster the American economy as I have been since 2022.”

In the lawsuit that has followed, Cook — “the first Black woman to sit on the Federal Reserve’s Board in its 111-year history,” the lawsuit notes — said Trump’s attempt to remove her is transparently an “unlawful” bid to fill her seat with someone who would “forward his agenda to undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve” until 2038, and at a time when the president has called for Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell to resign or be fired for dragging his feet on cutting interest rates.

“At each Federal Open Market Committee meeting in 2025, Governor Cook has joined Chairman Powell and other members in voting not to lower short-term interest rates,” the suit added.

Powell, it should be noted, is being sued alongside Trump in this case — “to the extent that he has any ability to take any action to effectuate President Trump’s purported termination of Governor Cook,” the suit said.

In seeking a declaration from a federal court that she has not been fired, Cook relies on a 90-year-old U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

As Law&Crime has reported in a separate case over Trump’s attempted firing of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner, the Supreme Court case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States established that “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” were the causes for firing an FTC commissioner, as Congress expressly intended to insulate the independent fair competition agency from being unfairly subjected to the whims of the executive and, by extension, politicization and dysfunction.

In that case, the estate of William Humphrey sued for back pay and succeeded in arguing that then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not have the power to fire him without cause after policy disagreements.

Cook maintains that the same applies in her case, because the wrongdoing alleged in the criminal referral has not been adjudicated through due process, because it relates to alleged conduct that actually predates her confirmation as a Fed governor, and because Congress likewise intended for the Federal Reserve to be independent of political pressures by requiring “cause” for firings by the president.

“In Humphrey’s Executor, the Court found that Congress has the authority to restrict presidential removals ‘depend[ing] upon the character of the office,” Cook argued. “Specifically, ‘for-cause’ removal restrictions were deemed constitutional with respect to officers at the FTC; in reaching this conclusion, the Court specifically relied on the FTC’s structure as (a) ‘a body of experts,’ (b) with long, staggered terms, (c) that was designed to be ‘nonpartisan’ and act ‘with entire impartiality.'”

“The Supreme Court recently made clear that the analysis in Humphrey’s Executor applies with particular force to the Federal Reserve,” the lawsuit continued.

Cook asserted that accepting Trump’s limitless interpretation of his firing power would mean he can “magically” establish cause “completely unmoored to caselaw, history, and tradition” by targeting any board member with whom he disagrees on monetary policy with “chalked up” allegations unrelated to their time “in office,” whether or not those claims are true.

“Indeed, President Trump’s conception of ’cause’ has no limiting principle; it would allow him to remove any Federal Reserve Board member with whom he disagrees about policy based on chalked up allegations. That the President says he has found (or created) some basis for removing a Governor does not magically make such a basis grounds for a ‘for cause’ removal under the [Federal Reserve Act] FRA.”

Simply put, the law and precedent establishes what “cause” for firing is and this is not it, said Cook’s attorney.

Cook is represented by attorney Abbe Lowell, known for representing Hunter Biden, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Trump nemesis New York Attorney General Letitia James as she fends off similar mortgage fraud allegations.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, a Joe Biden appointee, and a hearing on Cook’s request for a temporary restraining order has already been set for 10 a.m. on Friday, the court docket reviewed by Law&Crime shows.

Read the filing here.