UJ
—
A federal appeals court ruled on Saturday that the head of a government ethics watchdog agency, who was fired by President Donald Trump last week, can continue in his role. This decision is poised to escalate the debate over similar dismissals to the Supreme Court.
The appeals court upheld a restraining order that allows Hampton Dellinger to temporarily retain his position as special counsel. Dellinger, appointed by President Joe Biden, was serving a five-year term.
The Office of Special Counsel — different from special counsels conducting politically sensitive investigations for the Justice Department — deals with claims of whistleblower retaliation and is an independent entity established by Congress.
In a 2-1 ruling, the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit stated that the temporary order favoring Dellinger was not subject to appeal. The court noted that reviewing such orders, “would be inconsistent with governing legal standards and ill-advised.”
The court argued that granting a stay on a temporary restraining order “would set a problematic precedent.” They cautioned that allowing a party’s simple claim of “extraordinary harm” over two weeks to make a TRO appealable could encourage numerous litigants facing TROs to appeal them and seek stays.
Circuit Judges J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, both Biden appointees, voted against the Trump administration’s request for a stay. Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, indicated he would have supported the government’s request.
“The extraordinary nature of the order in question — which directs the president to acknowledge and collaborate with an agency head he has already dismissed — merits immediate appellate review,” Katsas commented.
This decision could lead to the first appeal amid a series of legal disputes connected to Trump’s second term, with the Department of Justice already indicating its plans to appeal.
The case raises significant questions regarding Trump’s attempts to centralize authority within the executive branch by dismissing government officials on independent boards, many of whom are safeguarded by laws necessitating the president to provide justification before terminating them.
Dellinger’s lawsuit is among at least three filed by officials dismissed by Trump questioning a president’s authority to remove leaders of independent agencies.
These lawsuits reference a 1935 Supreme Court ruling, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld Congress’s ability to implement for-cause protections for members of independent federal agency boards. However, several conservative justices have expressed discomfort with this ruling in recent years, and the Department of Justice under Trump has contended that these protections are unconstitutional.
UJ’s Tierney Sneed contributed to this report.
