ADVERTISEMENT
Pulte argued that the timing of the two loans indicated Cook’s lenders may not have been aware of each other’s underwriting processes, a situation he described as consistent with occupancy fraud
Cook’s legal complaint did not directly dispute the timeline of her mortgage filings but framed the allegations as overstated.
The complaint stated that the president’s justification for removal was “the unsubstantiated and unproven allegation that Governor Cook ‘potentially’ erred in filling out a mortgage form prior to her Senate confirmation. ”
Her lawyers argued that even if errors occurred, they did not rise to the legal standard of “cause” for removal under the Federal Reserve Act
“Even if the President had been more careful in obscuring his real justification for targeting Governor Cook, the President’s concocted basis for removal—the unsubstantiated and unproven allegation that Governor Cook ‘potentially’ erred in filling out a mortgage form… does not amount to ‘cause,’” the complaint read.
The case has drawn heightened attention given Cook’s appointment as the first Black woman to serve on the Federal Reserve Board in its 111 year history — an attempt by the former Biden administration to add diversity to the powerful financial body
Her lawyers emphasized this in their filing, noting: “Governor Cook is the first Black woman to sit on the Federal Reserve’s Board. ”
Legal experts say the dispute will likely turn on how courts interpret “cause” under the Federal Reserve Act, as well as the weight of the allegations against Cook
The Federal Reserve has not issued a public statement regarding Cook’s dismissal or the pending litigation. At stake in the lawsuit is a potential federal court ruling clarifying that the Federal Reserve is under the authority of the executive branch or else it is wielding “unconstitutional” authority.