Appeals court sides against Trump in dispute over dismissal of ethics official
A D.C. Circuit panel voted 2-1 to reject the president's request for the immediate removal of Hampton Dellinger.
TroibNews 
A divided panel from the federal appeals court has once again denied President Donald Trump’s attempt to proceed with his effort to remove a federal official responsible for overseeing workplace protections for federal employees.
In an order issued late Saturday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to maintain a temporary restraining order from a lower court that prohibits Trump from going forward with the dismissal of Office of Special Counsel chief Hampton Dellinger, who was appointed by President Joe Biden.
“I can and am continuing with my work as Special Counsel, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so,” Dellinger stated following the appeals court's decision.
As Trump swiftly seeks to terminate numerous officials from significant positions across the federal government, including watchdog roles, this case serves as an early test of the extent of his authority, potentially escalating to the Supreme Court in the near future. Lawyers for the Trump administration had previously indicated an intent to quickly escalate the matter to the justices if they did not succeed at the D.C. Circuit level.
The appeals court’s judges reflected a divide based on the partisan affiliations of the presidents who appointed them. Biden appointees Florence Pan and J. Michelle Childs voted against the president’s request, while Trump appointee Greg Katsas dissented.
Pan and Childs based their decision predominantly on procedural grounds, emphasizing that U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s current order reinstating Dellinger extends only to Feb. 26, and that such short-term orders typically do not fall within the scope of appeals court review.
“The relief requested by the government is a sharp departure from established procedures that balance and protect the interests of litigants, and ensure the orderly consideration of cases before the district court and this court,” Pan and Childs wrote, asserting that the appeals court intervening now “would throw a monkey wrench into the district court proceedings.”
In an apparent nod to numerous lawsuits recently launched against Trump's executive actions, the majority warned that lifting the TRO at this juncture was likely to result in “a deluge” of similar requests in other cases.
In contrast, Katsas — who previously served as a senior attorney in the White House Counsel’s Office during Trump’s first term — argued that the significance of Jackson’s order regarding presidential powers necessitated immediate appellate review.
“The extraordinary character of the order at issue here — which directs the President to recognize and work with an agency head whom he has already removed — warrants immediate appellate review,” Katsas stated.
He characterized the authority of the relatively obscure special counsel position, which enforces whistleblower protection and other statutes, as extensive.
“The Special Counsel has broad investigative and enforcement powers,” Katsas remarked.
The special counsel role involved in this legal conflict differs from criminal prosecutors appointed by the Justice Department for politically sensitive cases.
Just last week, the same D.C. Circuit panel ruled along similar partisan lines when they declined a request by the Justice Department to overturn a temporary order that had briefly restored Dellinger to his position.
The ruling could affect a number of other lawsuits initiated by officials suddenly dismissed by Trump from critical roles throughout the executive branch. This includes eight inspectors general — Congress-confirmed internal watchdogs for monitoring fraud, waste, and abuse — that Trump dismissed in his first week, as well as Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board, Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and Susan Grundmann from the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
Although none of these cases are identical, Trump is legally permitted to remove inspectors general; however, a 2022 law requires him to notify Congress 30 days in advance and provide a detailed explanation, neither of which he fulfilled. The other officials belong to multi-member boards, which the Trump administration has argued makes their removal less urgent, as those boards can continue operating during litigation.
A judge has already rejected the inspectors general’s plea for immediate reinstatement, and a ruling from U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras is anticipated soon regarding Harris’ urgent request to return to her position.
In his dissents to both rulings, Katsas made it clear he believes Trump possesses the authority to terminate officials like Dellinger.
“The TRO unjustifiably intrudes into a core institutional prerogative of the President,” Katsas stated in his dissent on Saturday. He noted that the Supreme Court has upheld the president’s power to remove individuals serving as the “single director” of executive agencies, despite legislative efforts to restrict this power to instances involving evidence of misconduct or incompetence.
However, attorneys for Dellinger contended that the special counsel role does not represent a typical regulatory agency impacting broad public interests via financial or health care controls. Instead, Dellinger’s office functions primarily as a watchdog, addressing complaints regarding federal agency compliance with laws that protect whistleblowers and restrict the use of their positions to influence political candidates.
Pan and Childs challenged some of Katsas’ conclusions but refrained from taking a definitive stance on Trump’s claim to authority for firing Dellinger, even while he is in the middle of a five-year term under a law that has been in place for over 40 years, limiting such removals to cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
The Justice Department had requested a ruling from the appeals court by Friday noon; however, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision just before 11 p.m. on Saturday. The ruling does not prevent the Trump administration or Dellinger from returning to court after Jackson makes a ruling on Dellinger’s request for a preliminary injunction, which typically remains active while a lawsuit is in progress.
Spokespeople for both the Justice Department and the White House did not immediately provide comments. Nevertheless, the Trump administration’s push for a swift ruling from the D.C. Circuit indicated that the administration sought the “opportunity to seek expeditious review from the Supreme Court if this Court denies relief.”
Camille Lefevre contributed to this report for TROIB News
In an order issued late Saturday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to maintain a temporary restraining order from a lower court that prohibits Trump from going forward with the dismissal of Office of Special Counsel chief Hampton Dellinger, who was appointed by President Joe Biden.
“I can and am continuing with my work as Special Counsel, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so,” Dellinger stated following the appeals court's decision.
As Trump swiftly seeks to terminate numerous officials from significant positions across the federal government, including watchdog roles, this case serves as an early test of the extent of his authority, potentially escalating to the Supreme Court in the near future. Lawyers for the Trump administration had previously indicated an intent to quickly escalate the matter to the justices if they did not succeed at the D.C. Circuit level.
The appeals court’s judges reflected a divide based on the partisan affiliations of the presidents who appointed them. Biden appointees Florence Pan and J. Michelle Childs voted against the president’s request, while Trump appointee Greg Katsas dissented.
Pan and Childs based their decision predominantly on procedural grounds, emphasizing that U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s current order reinstating Dellinger extends only to Feb. 26, and that such short-term orders typically do not fall within the scope of appeals court review.
“The relief requested by the government is a sharp departure from established procedures that balance and protect the interests of litigants, and ensure the orderly consideration of cases before the district court and this court,” Pan and Childs wrote, asserting that the appeals court intervening now “would throw a monkey wrench into the district court proceedings.”
In an apparent nod to numerous lawsuits recently launched against Trump's executive actions, the majority warned that lifting the TRO at this juncture was likely to result in “a deluge” of similar requests in other cases.
In contrast, Katsas — who previously served as a senior attorney in the White House Counsel’s Office during Trump’s first term — argued that the significance of Jackson’s order regarding presidential powers necessitated immediate appellate review.
“The extraordinary character of the order at issue here — which directs the President to recognize and work with an agency head whom he has already removed — warrants immediate appellate review,” Katsas stated.
He characterized the authority of the relatively obscure special counsel position, which enforces whistleblower protection and other statutes, as extensive.
“The Special Counsel has broad investigative and enforcement powers,” Katsas remarked.
The special counsel role involved in this legal conflict differs from criminal prosecutors appointed by the Justice Department for politically sensitive cases.
Just last week, the same D.C. Circuit panel ruled along similar partisan lines when they declined a request by the Justice Department to overturn a temporary order that had briefly restored Dellinger to his position.
The ruling could affect a number of other lawsuits initiated by officials suddenly dismissed by Trump from critical roles throughout the executive branch. This includes eight inspectors general — Congress-confirmed internal watchdogs for monitoring fraud, waste, and abuse — that Trump dismissed in his first week, as well as Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board, Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and Susan Grundmann from the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
Although none of these cases are identical, Trump is legally permitted to remove inspectors general; however, a 2022 law requires him to notify Congress 30 days in advance and provide a detailed explanation, neither of which he fulfilled. The other officials belong to multi-member boards, which the Trump administration has argued makes their removal less urgent, as those boards can continue operating during litigation.
A judge has already rejected the inspectors general’s plea for immediate reinstatement, and a ruling from U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras is anticipated soon regarding Harris’ urgent request to return to her position.
In his dissents to both rulings, Katsas made it clear he believes Trump possesses the authority to terminate officials like Dellinger.
“The TRO unjustifiably intrudes into a core institutional prerogative of the President,” Katsas stated in his dissent on Saturday. He noted that the Supreme Court has upheld the president’s power to remove individuals serving as the “single director” of executive agencies, despite legislative efforts to restrict this power to instances involving evidence of misconduct or incompetence.
However, attorneys for Dellinger contended that the special counsel role does not represent a typical regulatory agency impacting broad public interests via financial or health care controls. Instead, Dellinger’s office functions primarily as a watchdog, addressing complaints regarding federal agency compliance with laws that protect whistleblowers and restrict the use of their positions to influence political candidates.
Pan and Childs challenged some of Katsas’ conclusions but refrained from taking a definitive stance on Trump’s claim to authority for firing Dellinger, even while he is in the middle of a five-year term under a law that has been in place for over 40 years, limiting such removals to cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
The Justice Department had requested a ruling from the appeals court by Friday noon; however, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision just before 11 p.m. on Saturday. The ruling does not prevent the Trump administration or Dellinger from returning to court after Jackson makes a ruling on Dellinger’s request for a preliminary injunction, which typically remains active while a lawsuit is in progress.
Spokespeople for both the Justice Department and the White House did not immediately provide comments. Nevertheless, the Trump administration’s push for a swift ruling from the D.C. Circuit indicated that the administration sought the “opportunity to seek expeditious review from the Supreme Court if this Court denies relief.”
Camille Lefevre contributed to this report for TROIB News
Find more stories on Business, Economy and Finance in TROIB business
