Dispute over Trump's dismissal of inspector general escalates to Supreme Court
The Justice Department requested that the justices intervene to halt lower-court decisions that are obstructing the president's initial policy and personnel actions.
TroibNews 
President Donald Trump's attempt to broaden his authority to terminate executive branch officials has reached the Supreme Court, marking the beginning of swift legal contests in the initial weeks of his second term.
Trump is seeking to have the justices lift a lower court’s order that temporarily reversed his decision to dismiss the head of a typically obscure office responsible for enforcing laws related to federal employees.
The Trump administration criticized the lower court's ruling reinstating Office of Special Counsel chief Hampton Dellinger as an egregious and unnecessary infringement on presidential power that jeopardizes the president’s capacity to oversee the executive branch.
On February 7, Trump dismissed Dellinger, who was appointed by Joe Biden. Dellinger responded by suing to reclaim his position, citing a federal statute that constrains the president's authority to remove the special counsel. A federal district judge sided with Dellinger, ordering the Trump administration to reinstate him while the legal battle continued.
Following this, a split appeals court panel refused to alter the district judge's decision, leading the Trump administration to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.
"This case involves an unprecedented assault on the separation of powers that warrants immediate relief," acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris stated in an emergency application.
Harris argued that Dellinger's temporary reinstatement causes "irreparable harm" to Trump's "ability to manage the Executive Branch in the earliest days of his Administration." She urged the justices to intervene to prevent what she characterized as an even greater danger: a series of temporary restraining orders judges have recently issued against Trump's initial executive directives concerning various issues, including spending freezes and medical care for transgender youth.
"This Court should not allow the judiciary to govern by temporary restraining order and supplant the political accountability the Constitution ordains," Harris cautioned, adding that the ruling in Dellinger's case "risks further emboldening district courts to issue TROs enjoining the President from undertaking myriad other actions implicating executive powers."
Harris's robust defense of executive power seemingly ruled out one alternative that Trump had hinted at in recent days: simply disregarding court rulings with which he disagreed. On Saturday, Trump shared a controversial quote often attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte: "He who saves his Country does not violate any Law." This statement was quickly circulated by many of his appointees, including some within the Justice Department.
Nevertheless, Harrington noted in a footnote to her submission on Sunday that the administration has diligently complied with the lower-court order to restore Dellinger and would continue to respect court decisions.
"The Executive Branch takes seriously its constitutional duty to comply with the orders of Article III courts, and it has fulfilled that duty here," she affirmed.
Dellinger oversees the enforcement of federal whistleblower laws and investigates breaches of the Hatch Act, which restricts political activities by federal employees. His office also addresses complaints from veterans regarding discrimination post-service.
Though titled special counsel, Dellinger’s responsibilities do not involve the special counsels the Justice Department sometimes appoints for politically sensitive inquiries.
Dellinger is one of several executive branch officials Trump has attempted to dismiss despite federal legislation designed to protect the heads of so-called independent agencies from politically motivated firings. Other officials impacted include a member of the National Labor Relations Board, which adjudicates claims of unfair labor practices.
A nearly century-old Supreme Court precedent upholds federal laws limiting the president's capacity to dismiss officials managing independent federal agencies. However, the high court has recently narrowed this precedent, leading some experts to believe that Trump's actions may prompt the court to further diminish or even overturn it.
Thomas Evans contributed to this report for TROIB News
Trump is seeking to have the justices lift a lower court’s order that temporarily reversed his decision to dismiss the head of a typically obscure office responsible for enforcing laws related to federal employees.
The Trump administration criticized the lower court's ruling reinstating Office of Special Counsel chief Hampton Dellinger as an egregious and unnecessary infringement on presidential power that jeopardizes the president’s capacity to oversee the executive branch.
On February 7, Trump dismissed Dellinger, who was appointed by Joe Biden. Dellinger responded by suing to reclaim his position, citing a federal statute that constrains the president's authority to remove the special counsel. A federal district judge sided with Dellinger, ordering the Trump administration to reinstate him while the legal battle continued.
Following this, a split appeals court panel refused to alter the district judge's decision, leading the Trump administration to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.
"This case involves an unprecedented assault on the separation of powers that warrants immediate relief," acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris stated in an emergency application.
Harris argued that Dellinger's temporary reinstatement causes "irreparable harm" to Trump's "ability to manage the Executive Branch in the earliest days of his Administration." She urged the justices to intervene to prevent what she characterized as an even greater danger: a series of temporary restraining orders judges have recently issued against Trump's initial executive directives concerning various issues, including spending freezes and medical care for transgender youth.
"This Court should not allow the judiciary to govern by temporary restraining order and supplant the political accountability the Constitution ordains," Harris cautioned, adding that the ruling in Dellinger's case "risks further emboldening district courts to issue TROs enjoining the President from undertaking myriad other actions implicating executive powers."
Harris's robust defense of executive power seemingly ruled out one alternative that Trump had hinted at in recent days: simply disregarding court rulings with which he disagreed. On Saturday, Trump shared a controversial quote often attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte: "He who saves his Country does not violate any Law." This statement was quickly circulated by many of his appointees, including some within the Justice Department.
Nevertheless, Harrington noted in a footnote to her submission on Sunday that the administration has diligently complied with the lower-court order to restore Dellinger and would continue to respect court decisions.
"The Executive Branch takes seriously its constitutional duty to comply with the orders of Article III courts, and it has fulfilled that duty here," she affirmed.
Dellinger oversees the enforcement of federal whistleblower laws and investigates breaches of the Hatch Act, which restricts political activities by federal employees. His office also addresses complaints from veterans regarding discrimination post-service.
Though titled special counsel, Dellinger’s responsibilities do not involve the special counsels the Justice Department sometimes appoints for politically sensitive inquiries.
Dellinger is one of several executive branch officials Trump has attempted to dismiss despite federal legislation designed to protect the heads of so-called independent agencies from politically motivated firings. Other officials impacted include a member of the National Labor Relations Board, which adjudicates claims of unfair labor practices.
A nearly century-old Supreme Court precedent upholds federal laws limiting the president's capacity to dismiss officials managing independent federal agencies. However, the high court has recently narrowed this precedent, leading some experts to believe that Trump's actions may prompt the court to further diminish or even overturn it.
Thomas Evans contributed to this report for TROIB News
