Court Ruling Threatens Special Counsel’s Role in Protecting Federal Workers
A recent federal appeals court ruling has cast a shadow over the future of the Special Counsel, an office tasked with safeguarding federal employees from wrongful termination. The ruling paves the way for the potential removal of the current Special Counsel, Hampton Dellinger, a move that could significantly impact the protection afforded to government workers.
The legal battle began when then-President Donald Trump sought to dismiss Dellinger from his position. Dellinger’s role involves investigating and prosecuting cases where federal employees are allegedly terminated in violation of the law. The Trump administration has expressed its intent to replace Dellinger with Doug Collins, who currently heads the Department of Veterans Affairs. This proposed replacement has raised concerns, particularly given that the Department of Veterans Affairs has faced numerous complaints regarding prohibited personnel practices and has recently announced plans to lay off a substantial portion of its workforce.
The appeals court’s decision centers on Dellinger’s actions in reinstating terminated probationary employees and seeking pauses on their terminations from a federal labor board. The court argued that these actions constitute an exercise of executive power, which, according to the court, resides solely with the President. The court explicitly stated that Dellinger’s actions represent a "rogue use of executive authority" that undermines the President’s authority.
The ruling immediately suspends Dellinger’s reinstatement and effectively allows for his removal from office. This decision came shortly after Dellinger secured the temporary reinstatement of nearly 6,000 probationary employees at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Dellinger argued that these employees were terminated using a generic form letter citing performance issues without providing specific evidence. He has also successfully obtained temporary reinstatements for employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Energy, Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Office of Personnel Management.
These employees had previously received commendations, cash awards, and positive reviews, raising questions about the validity of the performance-based reasons cited for their terminations. The discrepancy between their performance evaluations and the reasons for their dismissal has fueled concerns about potential unlawful termination practices.
Legal experts anticipate that this case could ultimately reach the Supreme Court. The central issue at stake is whether the Special Counsel’s role involves the exercise of sufficient executive authority to classify the position as an at-will employee of the President, similar to a Cabinet official.
The 1978 federal law that established the Office of Special Counsel provides job protection, stating that the position can only be terminated for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." The Trump administration has challenged the constitutionality of this law, arguing that it infringes upon the President’s authority to remove executive officials.
Currently, only three other government positions – the head of the Social Security Administration, the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency – have similar job protections in place.
However, the appeals court cited Supreme Court precedent, asserting that the Constitution empowers the President to remove the sole heads of executive agencies. The court specifically referenced former President Joe Biden’s decision in 2021 to terminate the head of the Social Security Administration.
The potential removal of the Special Counsel has sparked concerns among federal employee advocates and legal observers. The Special Counsel’s office plays a critical role in ensuring that federal employees are protected from unlawful termination and that government agencies adhere to proper personnel practices.
Critics of the ruling argue that it could weaken the independence of the Special Counsel’s office and make it more susceptible to political influence. They fear that if the President can remove the Special Counsel at will, it could deter the office from vigorously investigating and prosecuting cases of wrongful termination, particularly those involving high-level officials or politically sensitive issues.
The outcome of this legal battle could have far-reaching implications for the rights and protections of federal employees. If the Supreme Court upholds the appeals court’s ruling, it could significantly diminish the independence and effectiveness of the Special Counsel’s office, potentially leaving federal workers more vulnerable to wrongful termination. Conversely, if the Supreme Court reverses the ruling, it would reaffirm the importance of an independent Special Counsel in safeguarding the rights of federal employees.
The legal saga surrounding the Special Counsel underscores the ongoing debate about the balance of power between the executive branch and independent agencies. It also highlights the importance of ensuring that federal employees are protected from arbitrary or unlawful termination, regardless of political considerations. The future of the Special Counsel’s office, and the protections it provides to federal workers, remains uncertain as this case continues to make its way through the legal system.
