A federal judge delivered a significant ruling on Saturday, asserting that President Donald Trump does not have the authority to summarily fire the head of an independent watchdog agency. This decision is likely to set the stage for a Supreme Court battle regarding Trump's extensive efforts to reshape the federal workforce and expand presidential power.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), cannot be removed without cause. The OSC plays a crucial role in investigating whistleblower reports from government employees and safeguarding federal workers from retaliation and political coercion. Jackson's ruling effectively blocks any attempt by the Trump administration to dismiss Dellinger without adhering to established legal protocols.
The Trump administration has indicated that it plans to appeal Jackson's ruling to the Supreme Court. On February 21, the Supreme Court declined to intervene in the matter until further proceedings unfolded. It's worth noting that the Office of Special Counsel is distinct from the special counsels appointed by the Justice Department, which handle cases involving potential conflicts of interest.
Dellinger, a Senate-confirmed appointee under President Joe Biden, filed a lawsuit against the administration after receiving a brief email in February that abruptly terminated his position. He contended that his firing breached a federal law stipulating that a special counsel can only be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” His five-year term was initially set to conclude in 2029.
Attorneys for the Trump administration argued that the president has the power to remove Dellinger without justification, claiming that a 1978 statute—enacted in the wake of the Watergate scandal—restricting the dismissal of the OSC head is unconstitutional. However, Judge Jackson disagreed, emphasizing in her ruling that this statute “must stand.” She noted that eliminating the restrictions on Dellinger’s removal “would be fatal to the defining and essential feature of the Office of Special Counsel as it was conceived by Congress and signed into law by the President: its independence.”
Judge Jackson further articulated the potential dangers of allowing arbitrary firings, stating, “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.” In response to the ruling, Dellinger expressed gratitude for the court’s validation of the legal protections afforded to his role, emphasizing his commitment to protecting federal employees and whistleblowers.
As the legal battle continues, a White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to requests for comments on the ruling. Judge Jackson had previously ordered Dellinger’s temporary reinstatement while she considered the arguments from both sides. An appeals court rejected the Trump administration’s urgent appeal to overturn this order, leading the administration to seek intervention from the Supreme Court.
Trump's attempt to terminate Dellinger is part of a larger initiative aimed at removing government watchdogs responsible for investigating misconduct and safeguarding federal employees. The president has also sought to dismiss the head of the Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent agency that addresses appeals related to civil service terminations and other adverse actions against federal employees. A federal judge has temporarily reinstated that official as well.
Dellinger’s office handles cases that may be referred to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which independently issues its own decisions. Moreover, Trump has attempted to remove over a dozen inspectors general, as well as members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, with many of these officials contesting their dismissals in court.
Alongside battling his own dismissal, Dellinger has raised concerns about the legality of the administration's mass firing of probationary federal employees. He recently requested that the Merit Systems Protection Board pause the termination of six probationary employees while his office investigates their cases. Dellinger argued that these dismissals appear to contradict a reasonable interpretation of the law and signaled he is exploring avenues to seek relief for a broader group of affected employees.
The Merit Systems Protection Board has granted Dellinger’s request, temporarily halting the dismissals for 45 days. While the president enjoys significant authority under Article II of the Constitution to appoint and remove leaders of federal agencies, Congress has instituted exceptions to maintain the independence and impartiality of certain agency heads. The Supreme Court has previously endorsed for-cause removal rules for multi-member agencies but recently ruled that such limitations may not apply to agencies led by a single director.
Dellinger’s case raises critical questions about whether he qualifies as a true agency head subject to removal at will or as an “inferior officer” entitled to protections against arbitrary dismissal. During a recent hearing, Judge Jackson challenged the administration's arguments, suggesting that reversing Dellinger’s firing would not infringe upon the president’s constitutional authority to appoint trusted individuals to executive branch positions. She posed a thought-provoking question: “How does that make any sense?”
Justice Department attorney Madeline McMahon countered that preventing Dellinger’s removal would hinder Trump’s control over an executive branch agency and represent an unconstitutional intrusion into the president’s authority.
