The Trump administration is pressing forward with efforts to dismiss Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, approximately two months after the Supreme Court permitted her to retain her position while she contests the president's attempt to remove her over mortgage fraud allegations she has consistently denied.

Fed governors are appointed to 14-year terms — staggered to span multiple presidencies and deliberately insulated from political pressure — making any attempt to remove one before term expiration historically rare and legally fraught.

In a narrow 5-4 ruling issued in June, the justices determined that Cook — nominated to the Fed's Board of Governors by President Joe Biden — could remain in her post for the duration of her lawsuit challenging the termination. The Trump administration is currently appealing a lower-court decision that ruled in Cook's favor. The ruling was one of several recent Supreme Court decisions testing the boundaries of presidential removal authority over officials at independent federal agencies.

Chief Justice John Roberts noted in a footnote to his opinion that nothing prohibits President Donald Trump from "trying again" to fire Cook, provided she receives proper notice and an opportunity to contest the action. Following the ruling, Trump signaled his intent to do precisely that, pledging to "take appropriate action immediately."

A letter obtained this week by The Associated Press reveals that White House aide Dan Scavino informed Cook that Trump was "considering removing you from your position." However, citing the Supreme Court's requirement for proper notice, the letter granted her until August 26 to mount a challenge.

The termination effort stems from a criminal referral issued last August by Bill Pulte, Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency — the regulator overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — alleging that Cook committed mortgage fraud by designating two separate properties — one in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and another in Atlanta — as her "primary residence." Homebuyers who classify a property as their primary residence can qualify for lower mortgage rates or reduced down payment requirements compared to those purchasing second or vacation homes.

Cook has mounted a vigorous defense against the allegations, asserting that the president sought to remove her "on a manufactured pretext because I refused to bow to political pressure and continued to set interest rates based only on what would best serve the American people."

Her attorney, Abbe Lowell, contended in a November letter that Cook has primarily resided at the Ann Arbor property since purchasing it in 2005. Consequently, it was accurate for her to describe the home as her "primary residence" in a June 2021 mortgage refinancing application.

The following month, Cook purchased a condominium in Atlanta and, in a July 2021 document, also designated it as her "primary residence." Lowell characterized this as an "isolated notation" that did not reflect any intent to defraud. He further noted that an earlier mortgage application to the same lender, submitted in May 2021, had properly identified the Atlanta condo as a "vacation home." Cook also referred to the property as a second home in federal disclosure filings during her Senate confirmation process for the Fed governorship.

The most recent White House letter largely reiterates the year-old allegations without presenting new evidence, according to The Associated Press.

"These allegations are as baseless now as they were a year ago when President Trump tried to remove Governor Cook and interfere with the independence of the Federal Reserve," Lowell said in a statement.

"No matter what President Trump tries to do next, this much is clear under the facts and Supreme Court precedent — there is no valid cause for removing Governor Cook. As we did before, we will challenge this latest pretext and preserve her position and the historic role of the Fed," he added.

The outcome of Cook's case and the broader appeal could shape precedent for the limits of presidential power over the central bank, particularly as courts continue to define executive authority over independent agencies. The August 26 response deadline and the pending appeal of the lower-court ruling mark the next procedural milestones in the dispute.

This story was originally published on Fortune.com.