The head of an independent watchdog agency, Hampton Dellinger, announced on Thursday that he is dropping his lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire him without cause. This decision concludes a significant legal battle centered on the critical question of whether independent government watchdogs can be summarily dismissed.
Dellinger, who leads the Office of Special Counsel (OSC)—an agency dedicated to protecting federal workers and whistleblowers from mistreatment—stated that he decided to cease his legal fight after a federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration could remove him while the case was ongoing. Had the case progressed to the Supreme Court, it could have offered a pivotal opportunity to determine if the restrictions on Dellinger’s removal infringed upon the executive authority granted to the president under the Constitution.
A ruling against Dellinger could have resulted in a permanent diminishment of the Office of Special Counsel, undermining its independence from the administration it is tasked with overseeing. In an emailed statement, Dellinger expressed that his struggle was not merely about his position but rather about preserving the integrity of the OSC as an independent watchdog and a safe haven for whistleblowers to report misconduct without fear of retaliation.
Dellinger highlighted the implications of the appeals court’s decision, remarking that it meant the OSC would be managed by someone who is entirely beholden to the president during the months it would take to receive a final ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. He acknowledged that his chances before the conservative supermajority of the Supreme Court were slim.
As his case navigated through the court system, Dellinger emerged as a prominent figure opposing Trump’s efforts to dismantle the federal workforce and his broad claims of executive power. He was dismissed last month via a brief email from the White House, where he contended that his termination violated the protections established by Congress decades ago to ensure the independence of his office.
In addition to challenging his own firing, Dellinger also criticized Trump’s mass termination of probationary federal employees, asserting that the abrupt dismissals were likely unlawful. A federal board responded by granting two of Dellinger’s requests to pause the firings while he investigated their legality.
A U.S. district judge previously ruled that Trump could not summarily dismiss Dellinger. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit intervened, pausing the district judge’s ruling and enabling Dellinger’s removal during the government's appeal process. Following the appeals court ruling, the White House released a statement claiming that the court had “vindicated the President’s right” to terminate the special counsel.
In a brief court filing, a lawyer representing Dellinger noted that both parties were still in negotiations to conclude the litigation. “However, Mr. Dellinger’s final and public decision means that there is presently no live appeal for this Court to address,” the lawyer stated.
Dellinger, a Democrat and seasoned attorney with experience in both state and federal government, expressed to The Washington Post that his conflict with the administration was not personal. He stated that he preferred to operate outside the spotlight, believing that the mission of his agency was at stake. “I never imagined that I would sue a president, and I did not do it lightly,” Dellinger, 57, remarked, emphasizing that he felt compelled to act against what he viewed as an unlawful effort to remove him.
His case attracted attention from conservative legal scholars and commentators who perceived the ruling that preserved his position as an encroachment on the president’s authority to appoint agency heads, illustrating the delicate balance of power outlined in the Constitution.
Supporters of whistleblower protections rallied behind Dellinger, warning that his removal would expose the OSC to political manipulation, which could deter whistleblowers from reporting misconduct. While both Dellinger and the administration acknowledged the statutory language stating that the president can only dismiss the special counsel for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” the administration's legal team argued that this language violated the Constitution's provisions regarding executive authority.
Dellinger, who hails from North Carolina and is an alumnus of Yale Law School, has a family legacy intertwined with public service and law. His mother was a public health law expert, and his father, a notable constitutional attorney, served in significant roles during President Bill Clinton’s administration. The elder Dellinger was remembered by President Joe Biden as a “protector of American democracy” following his passing in 2022.
After nearly two decades in private practice and a brief political campaign, Dellinger joined the Biden administration as an assistant attorney general. He was later nominated to lead the OSC, a nomination that faced opposition from some Senate Republicans due to his previous affiliation with the same law firm as Hunter Biden. Ultimately, Dellinger was confirmed for a five-year term in February.
During his tenure, Dellinger has overseen several significant investigations, including complaints against Biden administration officials under the Hatch Act and inquiries into the Department of Veterans Affairs for billing irregularities. His office has also taken steps to halt the administration’s dismissals of federal workers, asserting that such actions appeared contrary to legal standards.
Despite the challenges he faced, Dellinger remains committed to the mission of the OSC and the principles of justice and accountability that guide independent oversight within the federal government. In his closing remarks about the appeals court’s decision, Dellinger expressed his disagreement but stated, “I accept and will abide by it. That’s what Americans do.”
