发布时间：2026年1月21日，美国东部时间下午3:43 | 更新时间：2026年1月21日，美国东部时间下午4:37
作者：约翰·弗里茨（John Fritze）、德文·科尔（Devan Cole）、布莱恩·梅纳（Bryan Mena）、蒂尔尼·斯尼德（Tierney Sneed）
关键词：最高法院、唐纳德·特朗普、联邦机构、最高法院大法官
![图片4：2026年1月21日，最高法院就特朗普试图解雇美联储理事莉萨·库克的诉讼案进行辩论。保罗·克莱门特（Paul Clement）代表库克向大法官们陈述，库克、美联储主席杰罗姆·鲍威尔（Jerome Powell）和前美联储主席阿贝·洛厄尔（Abbe Lowell）旁听。]
2026年1月21日，最高法院就特朗普试图解雇美联储理事莉萨·库克的诉讼案展开辩论。保罗·克莱门特代表库克向大法官们陈述，库克、美联储主席杰罗姆·鲍威尔和前美联储主席阿贝·洛厄尔旁听。
达娜·韦科特伦（Dana Verkouteren）
最高法院周三对总统唐纳德·特朗普解雇美联储理事莉萨·库克的权力表示强烈怀疑，几位保守派大法官与自由派同事一道，对为总统辩护的律师提出尖锐质疑。
两小时辩论结束时，许多大法官似乎更关注法院将如何支持库克（而非是否支持），以及如何快速解决她的诉讼案。
这一案件是最高法院多年来处理总统权力与经济问题中最紧迫的案件之一。库克辩称，支持特朗普的裁决将在市场中引发“混乱”，并削弱央行长期以来独立于白宫政治的地位。特朗普政府则侧重于技术性论证，但即便在一个多次支持特朗普的6:3保守派法庭上，这些论证也收效甚微。
以下是口头辩论的关键要点：
保守派大法官迅速质疑特朗普
特朗普的第二任最高法院提名法官布雷特·卡瓦诺（Brett Kavanaugh）在早期一系列提问中明确表示，他对政府立场深表保留——特别是认为政府可以定义解雇库克的“理由”并规避法院审查的观点。
特朗普去年夏天以库克涉嫌抵押贷款欺诈（声称两处房产为主要居所）为由解雇了她。库克否认任何不当行为，并表示其他文件表明她明确其中一处房产是度假屋。
“种什么因，得什么果，”卡瓦诺警告美国副检察长D.约翰·绍尔（D. John Sauer），暗示下一任总统可能会以“琐碎或无关紧要或难以反驳的陈旧指控”为借口解雇特朗普任命的美联储官员。
“一旦这些工具被释放，双方都会使用它们。”卡瓦诺说道。
当绍尔称库克的申请存在“至少是重大过失”和“相当大的错误”时，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨（John Roberts）迅速介入。
“嗯，我认为我们可以讨论这一点，在购买房产时填写的一叠文件中，这有多大的重要性，”罗伯茨说。
就连同样对支持库克的下级法院裁决表示担忧的保守派大法官塞缪尔·阿利托（Samuel Alito）也一度表示不满，称此案被仓促提交法院，并表示特朗普的行动“处理得非常草率”。
库克面对更友好的法庭
为库克辩护的律师保罗·克莱门特（Paul Clement）受到的提问表明，大法官们可能已决定不会立即批准特朗普解雇库克，但正在考虑下一步该如何处理此案。
如果最高法院仅简单裁定特朗普未达到紧急干预的门槛，几乎可以肯定此案将在一两年内再次提交法院。但这也意味着库克在此期间将继续留任。
卡瓦诺表示，支持哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院的裁决（即特朗普未给予库克充分回应指控的机会，可能侵犯其正当程序权利）是解决当前争议的“最简单”方式。
但其他大法官指出，如果裁定特朗普必须给库克回应抵押贷款指控的机会，这无法回答所谓行为是否符合允许特朗普解雇她的“理由充分”标准的根本问题。
“我想我不太明白，除了重复我们今天上午讨论的那些问题外，发回重审的意义何在，”罗伯茨说。
辩论的一部分集中在司法机制的技术性问题上：如果法院裁定库克胜诉，将允许法院使用哪些类型的命令。法律对法院直接针对总统的命令类型有严格限制，但克莱门特指出，法院在找到针对下级官员的有效命令方面颇具创造性。
最高法院自由派成员凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊（Ketanji Brown Jackson）大法官表示，关于这一机制的讨论为时过早。
“没有人对总统解雇她的权利做出最终裁决。现在的问题是，在诉讼期间，临时会发生什么？”杰克逊说。
不过，克莱门特作为资深最高法院律师，似乎感觉到客户胜诉的迹象，他强调法院发布能解决辩论中提出的更广泛法律问题的意见将带来益处。
“如果你们决定进一步阐述实质性内容，可能会一劳永逸地解决所有问题，”克莱门特说，“这可能有一定价值。”
特朗普最全面的论点收效甚微
特朗普的律师多次辩称，法院不应审查他最具争议的举动，包括派国民警卫队进驻主要城市和试图利用广泛的战时权力快速驱逐移民。
司法部称，过多的法院干预会践踏行政部门自主治理的权力。
但在库克案中，大法官们似乎对这一立场兴趣不大。
几位大法官明确表示，他们不愿接受绍尔的观点，即司法机构在争议中无作用——特别是在审查解雇前给予库克或其他理事的程序充分性方面。
“你认为不存在司法审查、无需程序、无补救措施、‘理由’标准极低（由总统单独决定）——这意味着，若不彻底破坏，也会削弱美联储的独立性，”卡瓦诺对绍尔表示。
罗伯茨也多次让绍尔辩护其立场，不断追问法院何时（如果可能）能介入类似库克被解雇的争议事件。
“我认为我们可以讨论房地产，但我认为在你的立场下这无关紧要，对吧？换句话说，‘理由’的判定不可审查，对吗？”罗伯茨问绍尔。
副检察长辩称，只有当特朗普完全没有给出解雇库克的理由时，才存在司法审查的空间。
“但一旦进入这一范围，我们显然在此案中，那么将尊重总统的决定，”他告诉首席大法官。
罗伯茨还质疑政府声称法院无权复职被总统错误解雇的官员的立场。
“如果你正确地认为法院无权复职被解雇的官员，我们为何还要浪费时间纠结是否存在‘理由’？”罗伯茨问，“这与花费时间精力确定是否存在‘理由’如何一致？”
罗伯茨指出，如果总统解雇库克必须满足某种程度的“理由”，“你表明存在某种‘理由’——那么你关于法院不能命令被解雇者复职的观点就不成立。”
鲍威尔与库克罕见现身法庭
最高法院辩论的戏剧性还在于，美联储理事库克、主席杰罗姆·鲍威尔和前美联储主席本·伯南克（Ben Bernanke）坐在旁听席上，这是对美联储独立制定利率不受政治影响能力的鲜明支持。
鲍威尔的出席意义重大。本月早些时候，有消息称联邦检察官正在调查鲍威尔去年就美联储华盛顿特区总部翻新工程向国会作证的内容。鲍威尔发布了一段震撼视频，指责特朗普（一位对其利率政策持批评态度的人）试图迫使美联储屈服于其意志。
鲍威尔的视频——以及他出席最高法院听证会——与他以往应对特朗普攻击的方式截然不同。多年来，自特朗普第一任期以来，鲍威尔大多避免直接回应总统关于美联储应降低利率的公开抱怨。
鲍威尔下周在美联储政策制定者宣布最新利率决定后的新闻发布会上，可能会被要求进一步阐述其立场。
包括纽约联邦储备银行行长约翰·威廉姆斯（John Williams，美联储利率制定委员会的重要成员）在内的几位鲍威尔前同事和现任同事，都公开支持他应对政府高压的方式。
尽管库克在法庭上或辩论后未发言，但她在一份声明中表示，判决将决定“美联储是将根据证据和独立判断设定关键利率，还是屈服于政治压力”。出席周三听证会的还有美联储理事迈克尔·巴尔（Michael Barr）、鲍威尔的妻子和库克的几位家人。
口头辩论期间，法庭气氛热烈，多次出现低语和轻笑，包括大法官们多次提及特朗普在Truth Social上宣布解雇库克的帖子。
法院何时裁决此案及关税案？
鉴于辩论的基调以及此案在紧急日程中的地位，大法官们可能比通常更快地做出裁决。通常，最高法院会在6月底前解决最重要的案件。
本案是今年最高法院紧急日程中唯一的案件。这一特殊情况意味着没有特定的“争议焦点”——如果案件是从下级法院上诉的，通常会有明确的争议焦点。争议焦点有助于集中辩论并最终做出裁决。在本案中，库克将争议焦点广泛定义为美联储独立性问题，而特朗普则将其定义得更窄。
但更快解决的可能性意味着法院观察家、白宫和市场现在正焦急等待涉及特朗普政府的两个重大待决意见：库克案和挑战总统广泛使用紧急关税的上诉案。特朗普在11月初的关税案辩论中也面临艰难局面。
当然，最高法院的“快速”与华盛顿其他地方的定义不同。法院直到2月中旬才会再次开庭——不过可能会在任何时候增加一天来发布意见。
CNN的伊丽莎白·布赫瓦尔德（Elisabeth Buchwald）和奥斯汀·卡尔佩珀（Austin Culpepper）对此报道有贡献。
图片来源：https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/img-4901-01-jpg.jpg
Takeaways: Supreme Court signals it will defy Trump to keep Lisa Cook on Federal Reserve
Published Jan 21, 2026, 3:43 PM ET | Updated Jan 21, 2026, 4:37 PM ET
By John Fritze, Devan Cole, Bryan Mena, Tierney Sneed
Supreme Court Donald Trump Federal agencies Supreme Court justices
[Image 4: Supreme Court arguments on Trump’s effort to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook on January 21, 2026. Paul Clement argues before the justices as his client Lisa Cook looks on with Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and former Fed Chairman Abbe Lowell.]
Supreme Court arguments on Trump’s effort to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook on January 21, 2026. Paul Clement argues before the justices as his client Lisa Cook looks on with Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and former Fed Chairman Abbe Lowell.
Dana Verkouteren
The Supreme Court signaled deep skepticism Wednesday that President Donald Trump had the authority to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve, with several conservative justices joining their liberal colleagues in posing pointed questions of the lawyer defending the president.
By the end of the two-hour argument, many of the justices appeared to be more interested in how the court would side with Cook — not whether it would do so — and how quickly it would resolve her underlying litigation.
The case is among the most pressing to deal with presidential power and the economy that the Supreme Court has heard in years. Cook argued that a ruling for Trump would sow “chaos” in the markets and eviscerate the central bank’s longstanding independence from White House politics. The administration focused on more technical arguments that found little purchase, even on a 6-3 conservative court that has repeatedly sided with Trump.
Here are the key takeaways from oral arguments:
Conservatives rush to question Trump
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was Trump’s second nominee to the high court, made clear in a series of early questions that he had deep reservations with the administration’s position — specifically the idea that it could define the “cause” for firing Cook and evade review from courts.
Trump fired Cook last summer based on allegations that she had committed mortgage fraud by claiming two properties as her principal residence. Cook has denied any wrongdoing and has said that other documents demonstrate that she was clear one of the properties was a vacation home.
“What goes around comes around,” Kavanaugh warned US Solicitor General D. John Sauer, raising the possibility that the next president could cite some questionable “cause” to fire Trump’s appointees to the Fed based on“trivial or inconsequential or old allegations that are very difficult to disprove.”
“Once these tools are unleashed,” Kavanaugh said, “they’re used by both sides.”
Chief Justice John Roberts jumped in early when Sauer claimed that Cook’s applications were “at least gross negligence” and “quite a big mistake.”
“Well, I mean, I suppose we can debate that, how significant it is in a stack of papers you have to fill out when you’re buying real estate,” Roberts said.
Even Justice Samuel Alito, a conservative who also appeared to have concerns with lower court rulings that sided with Cook, at one point expressed annoyance that the case was being rushed through the courts and said that Trump’s move was “handled in a very cursory manner.”
Cook faces a friendlier bench
The questions for Paul Clement, the attorney arguing for Cook, signaled that the justices had likely decided that they were not inclined to give Trump the immediate okay to fire Cook, but were grappling with what should happen in the case next.
A narrow ruling simply concluding that Trump had not met the threshold for an emergency intervention would all but guarantee that the case would be back before the justices within a year or two. Yet it would also mean that Cook would remain in the job in the meantime.
A ruling agreeing with the DC Circuit that Trump had likely violated Cook’s due process rights by not giving her sufficient opportunity to respond to the allegations would be the “simplest” way to resolve the current dispute, Kavanaugh said.
But other justices noted that a ruling that said that Trump was required to give Cook an opportunity to respond to the mortgage claims wouldn’t answer the underlying questions over whether that alleged conduct meets the “for cause” threshold that allows Trump to fire her.
“I guess I don’t quite understand what sending it back would be for, other than airing of the same sort of issues that we’ve been airing this morning,” Roberts said.
Part of the debate centered on technical questions about the judicial mechanisms that courts would be allowed to use if they decided Cook should prevail in the lawsuit. There are legal limits constraining what types of orders courts can issue directly against presidents, but Clement noted that courts have been creative in finding ways to issue orders against lower-level officials to effectuate their rulings.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a member of the court’s liberal wing, suggested that the debate over that mechanism was premature.
“No one has made a definitive determination about the president’s right to remove her. The question now is, just in the interim, while that issue is being litigated, what happens?” Jackson said.
Still, in a sign that Clement sensed a win for his client, the veteran Supreme Court lawyer emphasized the benefits of the court issuing the opinion that would address the broader range of legal questions that had been put forward in the arguments.
“If you decided to go a little further and say something substantive, it might bring all of this to an end,” Clement said. “And there’s probably some virtue to that.”
Little traction for Trump’s sweepiest arguments
Trump’s lawyers have repeatedly argued that courts have no business scrutinizing some of his most controversial moves, including his desire to send National Guard troops to major cities and his effort to use a sweeping wartime authority to quickly deport migrants.
Too much court intervention, the Department of Justice has said, would trample on the executive’s power to govern as they see fit.
But the justices seemed to have little appetite for that position in Cook’s case.
Several members of the court made clear that they were not willing to adopt Sauer’s argument that the judiciary had no role to play in the dispute – specifically, in reviewing the amount of process given to Cook or another governor before their attempted removal.
“Your position that there’s no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available, very low bar for ‘cause’ – that the president alone determines – I mean that would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve,” Kavanaugh told Sauer.
Roberts, too, repeatedly put Sauer on the defense about his position, peppering him with questions about when, if at all, a court could step into a contested firing like Cook’s.
“I suppose we can debate real estate, but I gather under your position it doesn’t make a difference, right? In other words, the determination of cause is unreviewable, right?” Roberts asked Sauer.
The solicitor general contended that the only place for judicial review is if Trump gave no reason at all for his decision to fire Cook.
“But once you’re within that, and we clearly are here, then there would be deference to the president,” he told the chief justice.
Roberts also questioned the administration’s position that courts are powerless to reinstate an official who might be wrongly fired by the president.
“If you’re correct that courts do not have authority to reinstate a removed officer, why are we wasting our time wondering if there’s cause or not?” Roberts asked. “How is that consistent with the time and energy being spent on determining if there’s cause?”
If there is any level of cause that a president has to show to fire Cook, Roberts said, “and you indicate that there is some level of cause — well, then you can’t be right about the idea that a court can’t order anybody who’s been removed to be reinstated.”
Powell, Cook make rare appearance
Adding to the drama of the Supreme Court’s argument was the fact that Cook, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke sat in the audience, a striking show of support for the institution’s ability to set interest rates free of politics.
Powell’s attendance made a big statement. Earlier this month, it was revealed that federal prosecutors are probing Powell’s testimony to Congress last year on the Fed’s renovation of its Washington, DC headquarters. Powell released a stunning video calling out Trump, a critic of Powell’s actions on interest rates, for relentlessly trying to bend the Fed to his will.
Powell’s video — and his presence at the Supreme Court — is an extraordinary departure from his usual way of handling Trump’s attacks, which had been to simply avoid further escalation. For years, since Trump’s first term, Powell had mostly avoided responding directly to the president’s public gripes that the Fed should be lowering interest rates.
Powell will likely be asked to elaborate when he addresses reporters next week in a news conference after Fed policymakers announce their latest decision on interest rates.
Several of Powell’s former and current colleagues have come out in support of his response to the administration’s intense pressure campaign, including New York Fed President John Williams, a highly influential member of the Fed’s rate-setting committee.
While Cook did not speak in the courtroom or after the arguments, she did say in a statement that the verdict will decide “whether the Federal Reserve will set key interest rates guided by evidence and independent judgment or will succumb to political pressure.” Also in attendance at Wednesday’s hearing were Fed Governor Michael Barr, Powell’s wife and several members of Cook’s family.
It was a lively and full courtroom during oral arguments, with several moments of murmur and soft laughter, including at the justices’ multiple references to Trump’s Truth Social post notifying Cook of her termination.
When will the court rule on this and tariffs?
Given the tenor of the arguments, and the fact that the case was at the Supreme Court on an emergency basis, it’s possible that the justices will hand down a decision far more quickly than it normally might in an argued case. Usually, the court will resolve its most important cases before the end of June.
Trump v. Cook is the only case on the Supreme Court’s argument calendar this year on its emergency docket. That unusual posture means there’s no specific “question presented,” as there would be if the merits of the case had been appealed from a lower court. The “question presented” helps to focus an argument and, ultimately, a decision. In this case, Cook has defined the question very broadly as one of Fed independence. Trump, by contrast, has defined the case narrowly.
But the possibility of a faster resolution means that court watchers, the White House and the markets will now be waiting expectantly for two major pending opinions involving the Trump administration: The Cook case and the appeal challenging the president’s sweeping use of emergency tariffs. Trump also faced a rocky argument in the tariffs case in early November.
Of course, the Supreme Court’s view of “fast” is different than how the rest of Washington would define that word. The court is not scheduled to take the bench again until mid-February — though it could add a day to release opinions at any time.
CNN’s Elisabeth Buchwald and Austin Culpepper contributed to this report.
Supreme Court Donald Trump Federal agencies Supreme Court justices
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/img-4901-01-jpg.jpg
发表回复