Supreme Court Halts Trump’s Attempt to Fire Ethics Watchdog Head
Introduction
On Friday, the United States Supreme Court declined to lift a lower court order reinstating Hampton Dellinger as the head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), a government ethics watchdog agency. This ruling marks the first time the Supreme Court has weighed in on the numerous lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s actions since taking office.
Dellinger’s Firing and Legal Challenge
On February 7, 2018, President Trump fired Dellinger via email. Dellinger was appointed by then-President Joe Biden in 2022 and confirmed by the Senate for a five-year term set to expire in 2029. The OSC protects federal workers from retaliation, particularly whistleblowers.
In response to Dellinger’s firing, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson temporarily reinstated him, ruling that under federal law, Dellinger could only be fired for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." The Trump administration appealed this decision, arguing that such protections were unconstitutional.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court postponed deciding on Trump’s emergency request to lift Judge Jackson’s order until next week. In the meantime, the Court said it would put Trump’s request on hold until after a hearing scheduled for February 26.
Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said they would have denied Trump’s request. Two conservative justices, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, said they would have granted it.
Justice Department’s Argument
The Justice Department argued that the issues raised in the case were too important to wait for further developments, calling it an "unprecedented assault on the separation of powers." The Department cited the Court’s previous decision on presidential immunity, which held that courts cannot examine the president’s actions related to powers the Constitution gave exclusively to the president.
Dellinger’s Response
Lawyers for Dellinger argued that Trump was trying to "create a rocket docket straight to this court, even as high-stakes emergency litigation proliferates across the country." They warned that allowing Trump’s request would invite more such attempts to block the president’s actions.
Historical Perspective
The Supreme Court has issued various rulings in the past century about presidents’ ability to remove the heads of various independent agencies. In recent years, the Court has moved toward giving presidents more control. However, as Judge Jackson ruled, Dellinger’s specific protections against removal without cause were intended to ensure the independence of the OSC from political influence.
Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision to postpone its ruling until next week indicates that it recognizes the significance of the case and the potential implications for the separation of powers. It also reflects the ideological divide on the Court, with the conservative justices willing to grant Trump’s request and the liberal justices opposed.
The ultimate outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for the Office of Special Counsel and other independent government agencies, as well as for the balance of power between the president and the judicial branch.
