Consider yourself sued, despot.

That was Lisa Cook’s message to Donald Trump on Thursday, when attorneys for the first African American woman to serve on the Fed Board entreated the US District Court for the District of Columbia to let their client serve in her capacity as Fed governor until such a time as the (il?)legality of Trump’s brazen decision to dismiss her can be established.

Although Trump’s obviously spoiling for a fight, it’s not clear whether he’s especially concerned about replacing Cook before the September FOMC meeting, at which the Fed’s going to cut rates anyway.

Senate Republicans are rushing to approve Stephen Miran’s nomination so he can occupy Adriana Kugler’s vacant governor seat at next month’s policy gathering. Getting two nominees through by then may be a tall order even considering the GOP’s implicit promise to act as a rubber stamp for Trump’s multiplying diktats.

Frankly, I doubt Trump’s going to put up with these procedural hurdles for the entirety of his second term, which is to say there’ll probably come a point when he eschews cumbersome processes in favor of simply making personnel changes within the government the same way Frank Cross fired Eliot Loudermilk.

I’ve said this before, and I’m sure I’ll say it another several times before I say “I told you so” on this point too, but nothing’s stopping Trump from resorting to physical coercion to get what he wants. I’ll leave that there for now because it’s not relevant yet, thank God.

In her lawsuit, Cook characterizes Trump’s attempt to fire her as “an unprecedented and illegal attempt to remove” a Fed governor, “which, if allowed to occur, would… subvert the Federal Reserve Act.”

The suit doesn’t say whether Cook actually disputes the owner-occupancy fraud allegations leveled first by FHFA chief Bill Pulte, who some critics say has morphed into a kind of personal prosecutor for Trump.

Cook hasn’t been charged with a crime, the mortgage applications in question predated her (contentious) Senate confirmation and the allegations aren’t related in any strict sense to her role as Fed governor, notwithstanding Trump’s attempt to conflate the two by clumsily asserting that Cook’s “in charge of, if you think about it, mortgages.” (Lisa Cook, PhD, Mortgage Superintendent, If You Think About It)

“The President’s actions violate Governor Cook’s Fifth Amendment due process rights and her statutory right to notice and a hearing under the FRA,” the suit goes on to complain, asking for “immediate declaratory and injunctive relief” such that the Fed Board’s “congressionally mandated independence” is assured.

I’m not an attorney. And that’s an important caveat, so don’t gloss over it. That said, I’m not sure Cook will prevail on the merits if the substance of her argument is that mortgage fraud, even if proven, doesn’t count as “cause” for removal from the Fed Board. After all, it’s a crime. If you’ve been crime-ing, that’s a bad look for a public servant, even if it predated your tenure in government.

That comes with an obligatory footnote which reminds you that Trump’s a twice-impeached, four times-indicted convicted felon, who’s been charged with 88 criminal counts and found guilty of 34. (“And I said to Bill, ‘Listen, maybe she did some crimes maybe she didn’t, but I’m like, the biggest crime person, ok?’ Just so you understand: I did nothing wrong, but a lot of very bad people said they’ve never seen anybody do so much crime. So, look, she’s a crime person, maybe. I don’t know. But if I was a crime person — and I’m not — I’d be the biggest crime person. Maybe ever.”)

Whether Cook gets the injunctive relief she’s seeking matters. If she’s allowed to continue on until this case is resolved (probably by the Supreme Court), she’d be able to vote on policy in September, and maybe in October and December too.

If Trump’s determined that can’t happen, SCOTUS will have to decide, soon, whether to allow Cook’s dismissal to stand on an interim basis. If they go the appeasement route on this too (i.e., as they did in cases involving other independent agency personnel earlier this year), then Trump would arguably be able to fire, at least temporarily, Powell, Philip Jefferson and/or Michael Barr, if the administration can find an excuse which may count as “cause” on some tortured definition of the term.

I should note: Jefferson was reportedly under consideration for Powell’s role, so I doubt Trump’s looking to fire him. As for Barr, recall that he voluntarily stepped aside as Vice Chair of Supervision ahead of Trump’s second inaugural, effectively ceding that position to Miki Bowman, who Trump preferred.

On January 8, an irritable Maxine Waters described herself as “deeply concerned” about Barr’s resignation from the supervisory position, and even more worried about reports that “President-elect Trump’s senior advisers were silently plotting to strip Barr of his role.” “This is an unprecedented and unacceptable attempt by the incoming Administration to undermine the Federal Reserve,” Waters said, at the time. “Make no mistake, Trump and his senior advisers are plotting to blow up the independence of the Fed for their own gain.”

Fast forward eight months and here we are. If you haven’t yet read “Trump, Cook, SCOTUS And The Appeasement Paradox,” now’s the time.

Cook’s suit lists Powell and the Fed itself as defendants, in recognition of the institution’s capacity to act in accordance with Trump’s commands.

“Defendant Jerome H. Powell is sued in his official capacity as Chair of the Board, to the extent he has any ability to take any action to effectuate [the] purported termination of Governor Cook,” the suit reads, adding that “Defendant Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States.” He too is sued “in his official capacity.”

Cook V. Trump