A federal judge ruled Saturday that President Donald Trump unlawfully removed Biden ethics enforcer Hampton Dellinger from the Office of Special Counsel after taking office in January, setting the stage for a critical Supreme Court battle.
Trump’s Justice Department condemned the weekend ruling as a “extraordinary intrusion into the president’s authority.”
“In sum, it would be antithetical to the very existence of this particular government agency and position to vindicate the President’s Article II power as it was described in Humphrey’s Executor (Humphrey’s Executor v. United States): a constitutional license to bully officials in the executive branch into doing his will,” according to U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s 67-page letter.
Jackson, a Barack Obama appointee, ruled in favor of keeping Dellinger on the job after hearing arguments from DOJ lawyers and Dellinger’s legal team at multiple hearings over the past month, which stemmed from a temporary restraining order she issued on Feb. 12 that stayed Trump’s original termination of Dellinger in January.
Dellinger, who was appointed by Joe Biden in 2024 to lead the Office of Special Counsel and enforce whistleblower laws, sued on Feb. 10 in the District of Columbia after being fired “in a one-sentence email,” according to his federal complaint.
The DOJ attempted to argue that Dellinger was removed because he is “wielding executive power” and has rule-making authority, which allows him to punish the Trump administration and members of the executive branch at will.
Jackson, on the other hand, referred to it as “rule-reading authority” in previous hearings, eventually agreeing with Dellinger’s lawyers’ arguments that he could only conduct probes and make suggestions, and she stuck to that assessment in her ruling Saturday.
“The Office of Special Counsel is not assigned responsibilities that include furthering the administration’s agenda,” Jackson told reporters.
“It is the Special Counsel’s responsibility to investigate and shed light on a specific set of prohibited practices so that the other bodies, in accordance with their constitutional authority, can take whatever action they deem appropriate.
To do this as Congress intended, he must be completely independent of partisan or political influence, which is why the statute stands up to scrutiny even under the most recent precedent.”
According to Jackson, a review of the “statutory provisions” outlining the Office of Special Counsel’s powers and functions, as well as the “history of the legislation” establishing its position and terms, “reveals that his independence is inextricably intertwined with the performance of his duties,” according to her ruling.
“The Special Counsel’s job is to look into and expose unethical or unlawful practices directed at federal civil servants, and to help ensure that whistleblowers who disclose fraud, waste, and abuse on the part of government agencies can do so without suffering reprisals,” indicated Jackson.
“It would be ironic, to say the least, and inimical to the ends furthered by the statute if the Special Counsel himself could be chilled in his work by fear of arbitrary or partisan removal.”
Trump’s DOJ lawyers announced in court filings on Saturday that they would appeal Jackson’s ruling to the D.C. Court of Appeals.
They moved to stay the judge’s order declaring Trump’s firing of Dellinger as “unlawful” — once again stating that he should remain terminated pending the appeal — following multiple failed attempts to have Jackson’s TRO overturned last month, including an unsuccessful bid in appeals court.
Trump’s DOJ maintains that the president’s Article II authority allows him to fire Dellinger because it “precludes Congress from placing limits on the President’s authority to remove principal officers of the United States who serve as sole heads of an Executive Branch agency.”
In their motion to stay Jackson’s order, DOJ lawyers argued that her relief “constitutes an extraordinary intrusion into the president’s authority.” They stated that they believe the DOJ is “likely to succeed on the merits” of its claims if the Dellinger case is heard by the Supreme Court, as Trump advocates.
After Jackson granted Dellinger an extension on Wednesday, his administration issued an urgent plea to the country’s highest court last week, requesting that it quickly take up and begin weighing the grounds for vacating the lower court’s original order.
According to a letter sent to the Supreme Court by DOJ lawyers, Dellinger barred the president from firing federal employees last month who his administration claims are unfit to work for the government. Dellinger and his lawyers responded with their own letter on Thursday, claiming Trump’s legal team misinterpreted the firings.
“It was the [Merit Systems Protection Board], not the Special Counsel, that ‘halt[ed]’ certain personnel actions and it is the MSPB (not the Special Counsel) that will render any further decisions and issue any binding orders within the Executive Branch’s internal administrative process concerning the propriety of those personnel actions,” Joshua Matz, Delliger’s attorney, indicated.
“As the Special Counsel is fully prepared to explain when the government properly raises this issue in the litigation, the government’s assertion that this administrative action supports its position is without merit.” To the contrary, a more accurate understanding of that process supports the Special Counsel’s position on his for-cause removal protection.”
Dellinger allegedly launched an OSC investigation into Trump’s termination of six federal employees just days after Jackson granted a temporary restraining order to reinstate him as special counsel after the president fired him on February 10.
Dellinger conducted the investigation and then petitioned the Merit Systems Protection Board last Friday to have the firings reversed. Jackson gave him his first TRO lifeline on February 12, and his office reportedly announced the OSC probe on February 14.
“The Supreme Court has made clear — twice, and recently — that Article II precludes Congress from placing limits on the President’s authority to remove principal officers of the United States who serve as sole heads of an Executive Branch agency,” the Justice Department’s motion stated on Saturday.
“On that basis, in 2021, President Biden fired the Social Security Administration’s single head without cause. In removing Plaintiff as head of OSC, another Executive Branch agency with a single head, the President simply exercised the same authority that President Biden used to remove the Social Security Commissioner, which the Supreme Court recognized as lawful in Seila Law and Collins.”
