The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a brief order notifying the government that President Donald Trump”s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Board governor Lisa Cook, based on the existence of a mortgage fraud criminal referral his own administration created, will go absolutely nowhere for months.

Without offering any reasoning, SCOTUS decided Trump had failed for now in his “shadow docket” demand for a stay of a lower court order that blocked Cook’s firing, deferring a ruling on a stay application and noting oral arguments in the case would not be heard until January:

The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument in January 2026. The Clerk is directed to establish a briefing schedule for amici curiae and any supplemental briefs responding to amici.

In other words, Cook’s job is safe for at least three full months until the justices will even hear the government’s case for firing the governor, and then the Trump administration will await SCOTUS’ ruling.

That denial is a far cry from the emergency relief Trump has won at SCOTUS in other firing cases, and the unique independence and importance of the U.S. central bank and monetary policy agency may be why.

In August, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte alleged in a criminal referral that Cook, prior to her confirmation to the Federal Reserve Board, “falsified bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms, potentially committing mortgage fraud” by listing two houses as her primary residence. Trump then cited that referral as “cause” for firing Cook, as he pressured the Fed to cut interest rates.

Cook, denying mortgage fraud claims she hasn’t been charged for, sued in federal district court and successfully blocked the firing as her lawsuit continues. A 2-1 panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit subsequently upheld the injunction, leading the DOJ to ask the Supreme Court for a stay.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that Trump’s determinations about Cook’s “conduct, ability, fitness, or competence” to serve were within the president’s “unreviewable discretion,” making his cited “cause” for her firing — the “appearance” of fraud — unquestionable by the courts.

“The President’s strong concerns about the appearance of mortgage fraud, based on facially contradictory representations made to obtain mortgages by someone whose job is to set interest rates that affect Americans’ mortgages, satisfies any conception of cause,” the brief said. “That is especially true here, where Cook has not disputed any material fact or offered any plausible justification for her conduct.”

Cook countered that the president’s “cause” was “conveniently timed” and based on “flimsy, unproven allegations of pre-office wrongdoing.” To allow Cook’s firing on that basis would be to “eviscerate the independence of the Federal Reserve Board” from presidential meddling and fly in the face of SCOTUS’ “history and tradition” rulings of recent years, her lawyers said.

“Granting that relief would dramatically alter the status quo, ignore centuries of history, and transform the Federal Reserve into a body subservient to the President’s will,” Cook asserted.

Time will tell if that argument ultimately wins the day, but for now Trump’s firing quest has hit a supreme roadblock.