Four months into Donald Trump’s second term, the U.S. Supreme Court is stepping into a high-stakes battle over the independence of the Federal Reserve.

The court signaled interest in protecting the central bank from political interference as it prepares to review Trump’s attempt to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook on Wednesday.

This case, alongside a separate dispute over Trump’s global tariffs heard in November, marks the second major economic policy challenge of the court’s current term, which began in October. Rulings on both matters are expected by the end of June, potentially shaping the limits of presidential power over the economy.

The issue has ignited fierce debate over how much control a president should wield over monetary policy. While some see Trump’s actions as a necessary check on unelected officials, others warn of dangerous overreach into an institution designed to remain insulated from political whims.

Trump’s Push to Fire Cook Sparks Concern

Trump’s bid to remove Cook, a Joe Biden appointee and the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor, stems from allegations of mortgage fraud before her 2022 appointment, Newsmax reported. Cook has denied the claims, calling them a pretext for her dismissal over monetary policy disagreements. Her lawsuit, filed in August, challenges whether Trump’s stated reasons meet the “cause” required under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

A Washington-based federal judge ruled that Trump’s claims likely fall short of justifying her removal. When a federal appeals court upheld that decision, Trump turned to the Supreme Court, where a 6-3 conservative majority now holds sway. The justices’ decision to let Cook stay in her role during the case hints at a protective stance toward the Fed.

Legal analysts point to recent rulings as evidence that the court values the central bank’s autonomy. Last May, in Trump v. Wilcox, the justices allowed Trump to dismiss Democratic members of federal labor boards while distinguishing the Fed as a unique entity. This suggests a line may be drawn when it comes to economic policy.

Fed Independence Under Scrutiny Amid Tariffs Case

The Cook case isn’t the only economic fight on the docket. In November, the court heard arguments over Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, imposed under a law intended for national emergencies, with justices showing skepticism about their legality. These import taxes, affecting nearly every U.S. trading partner, underscore the broader question of executive authority.

Legal scholars draw parallels to the 1930s, when the court last tackled economic policy on this scale during Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal era amid the Great Depression. Columbia Law School professor Kathryn Judge noted, “This Supreme Court has taken a very expansive approach to executive authority.” Her words hint at a judiciary often friendly to Trump, though she adds, “but it is not unbounded.”

The judge’s caution rings true when considering the court’s track record. While it has backed Trump on emergency rulings in areas like immigration and federal layoffs since his return to office 12 months ago, those decisions didn’t directly expand his grip on economic levers. The Cook and tariffs cases feel different, more consequential.

Political Pressure on the Fed Raises Eyebrows

Critics see a pattern in Trump’s moves against Fed officials, including a separate criminal investigation into Chair Jerome Powell over congressional testimony about a building project.

On Sunday, Powell called it a pretext for gaining influence over monetary policy. Many suspect the timing, ahead of November midterm elections, where Democrats aim to reclaim Congress from Republicans, is no coincidence.

The pressure on Cook and Powell could be an attempt to push the Fed into lowering interest rates, easing voter concerns over pocketbook issues.

Legal scholar John Yoo warned, “I think they worry about the effect that removal of central bank independence could have on the economy.” His point cuts to the heart of why an apolitical Fed matters.

Yoo’s concern about economic fallout isn’t abstract. History shows that political meddling in central banking often fuels inflation, a burden that hits working families hardest. If the court bends to Trump here, the ripple effects could be felt at every kitchen table.