Court Decides Trump's Termination of Federal Workforce Monitor Was Unlawful
The decision to reinstate the special counsel paves the way for a confrontation over executive power, a conflict that the Supreme Court is expected to address.
TroibNews 
A federal judge ruled on Saturday that President Donald Trump's dismissal of a federal workforce watchdog was unlawful, setting the stage for a Supreme Court battle regarding the president’s asserted dominance over the executive branch.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson determined that Hampton Dellinger, who was confirmed last year as the head of the Office of Special Counsel, can continue to serve his five-year term despite Trump's attempt to remove him through a succinct email last month.
A law in effect for over 40 years stipulates that the special counsel can only be removed for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." However, the Justice Department argued that this provision is unconstitutional as it restricts the president's authority over executive agencies.
Judge Jackson concluded that Dellinger’s responsibilities—including ensuring accountability for ethics violations among executive officials and managing whistleblower complaints—are intended to be independent of presidential control, thereby making the position an unusual exception to the president's generally extensive power over the executive branch.
Dellinger’s “independence is inextricably intertwined with the performance of his duties,” Jackson stated in a detailed 67-page opinion. She added, “The elimination of the restrictions on plaintiff’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. The Court concludes that they must stand.”
Attorneys from the Justice Department argued that Dellinger possessed significant unilateral authority, underscoring the necessity for presidential oversight. Jackson, however, asserted that the Trump administration was overstating the special counsel's authority.
“This is not significant executive authority. It is hardly executive authority at all,” the judge, appointed by President Joe Biden, remarked.
Shortly after Jackson's ruling, the Justice Department appealed her decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Representatives from the White House and the Justice Department did not respond immediately to requests for comments.
Dellinger, a Biden appointee, expressed appreciation for the ruling, stating, “I’m grateful to see the court confirm the importance and legality of the job protections Congress afforded my position. My efforts to protect federal employees generally, and whistleblowers in particular, from unlawful treatment will continue.”
Following Dellinger’s dismissal last month, Jackson issued a temporary restraining order that reinstated him to his position. This led the Justice Department to seek emergency action from the Supreme Court to proceed with Trump’s dismissal of Dellinger. The Supreme Court responded unusually, neither granting nor denying the request, but rather holding it “in abeyance” pending further proceedings in the lower courts.
Two justices appointed by Republican presidents—Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito—dissented, indicating they would have suspended Jackson’s ruling.
This dispute is expected to return to the Supreme Court in the coming days or weeks.
Emily Johnson for TROIB News
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson determined that Hampton Dellinger, who was confirmed last year as the head of the Office of Special Counsel, can continue to serve his five-year term despite Trump's attempt to remove him through a succinct email last month.
A law in effect for over 40 years stipulates that the special counsel can only be removed for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." However, the Justice Department argued that this provision is unconstitutional as it restricts the president's authority over executive agencies.
Judge Jackson concluded that Dellinger’s responsibilities—including ensuring accountability for ethics violations among executive officials and managing whistleblower complaints—are intended to be independent of presidential control, thereby making the position an unusual exception to the president's generally extensive power over the executive branch.
Dellinger’s “independence is inextricably intertwined with the performance of his duties,” Jackson stated in a detailed 67-page opinion. She added, “The elimination of the restrictions on plaintiff’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. The Court concludes that they must stand.”
Attorneys from the Justice Department argued that Dellinger possessed significant unilateral authority, underscoring the necessity for presidential oversight. Jackson, however, asserted that the Trump administration was overstating the special counsel's authority.
“This is not significant executive authority. It is hardly executive authority at all,” the judge, appointed by President Joe Biden, remarked.
Shortly after Jackson's ruling, the Justice Department appealed her decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Representatives from the White House and the Justice Department did not respond immediately to requests for comments.
Dellinger, a Biden appointee, expressed appreciation for the ruling, stating, “I’m grateful to see the court confirm the importance and legality of the job protections Congress afforded my position. My efforts to protect federal employees generally, and whistleblowers in particular, from unlawful treatment will continue.”
Following Dellinger’s dismissal last month, Jackson issued a temporary restraining order that reinstated him to his position. This led the Justice Department to seek emergency action from the Supreme Court to proceed with Trump’s dismissal of Dellinger. The Supreme Court responded unusually, neither granting nor denying the request, but rather holding it “in abeyance” pending further proceedings in the lower courts.
Two justices appointed by Republican presidents—Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito—dissented, indicating they would have suspended Jackson’s ruling.
This dispute is expected to return to the Supreme Court in the coming days or weeks.
Emily Johnson for TROIB News
