UJ
—
On Friday, the Supreme Court thwarted President Donald Trump’s attempt to swiftly dismiss the head of an independent agency responsible for investigating whistleblower allegations, permitting Hampton Dellinger to continue in his role at least until mid-next week.
By refusing to support Trump’s urgent appeal, the court, which leans conservative, effectively sided with Dellinger. Appointed by President Joe Biden in 2024 to head the Office of Special Counsel for a five-year term, Dellinger was dismissed by White House officials in a brief email shortly after Trump resumed his presidency.
Dellinger’s appeal marked the first case to reach the Supreme Court amidst Trump’s rapid actions since regaining the White House. Numerous lawsuits concerning executive orders, immigration, various firings, and Elon Musk’s governmental engagements are currently progressing through lower courts.
The Supreme Court issued an unsigned order pausing the case until February 26, when a temporary ruling from a lower court is set to expire, coinciding with a scheduled district court hearing.
Before the justices was a procedural issue regarding whether a lower court’s temporary order halting Dellinger’s termination for several weeks should be overturned.
However, underlying this matter are more crucial questions about Trump’s authority to dismiss individuals who have for-cause removal protections under federal law. While these significant issues remain unaddressed for now, they’re likely to return to court in the near future.
The Office of Special Counsel operates independently from special counsels like Jack Smith or Robert Mueller, who are tasked with overseeing politically sensitive investigations by the Justice Department. Instead, Dellinger addresses claims of whistleblower retaliation made by federal employees, including those losing their positions as Trump attempts to rapidly downsize the executive branch. Established during the Carter administration, Congress stipulated that the special counsel could only be removed by the president for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
Dellinger was dismissed by the director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office in a brief email on February 7, which did not reference any of the necessary for-cause criteria, according to court documents.
This litigation could have significant repercussions for Trump’s influence over independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve. A coalition of law professors urged the Supreme Court in a brief submitted Tuesday to protect the Federal Reserve from any resultant decisions in Dellinger’s case, cautioning against possible “highly undesirable implications and consequences for the economy.”
Congress has afforded certain agencies a level of independence to make decisions free from White House pressure. During his first term, Trump frequently urged the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates. Such reductions can elevate stock prices and lower borrowing costs, often boosting a president’s approval ratings, but they can also contribute to rising inflation.
The board largely disregarded Trump’s requests. If he prevails, he could simply remove board members and appoint replacements who align with his expectations.
In Dellinger’s situation, a federal district court issued a temporary restraining order blocking Trump from executing the dismissal for a few weeks, allowing time for the court to consider the matter. Such temporary orders are generally not subject to appeal. Nonetheless, the Justice Department under Trump appealed, contending that federal courts had launched an “unprecedented assault on the separation of powers” with the ruling.
In a 2-1 decision over the weekend, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declared the temporary order to be non-appealable. The majority included two judges appointed by former President Joe Biden, while a third judge, appointed by Trump, indicated he would have approved the government’s request to block the temporary order.
This story is breaking and will be updated.
