Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Attempt to Remove Head of Office of Special Counsel
A D.C.-based federal district judge has ruled that the Trump administration’s firing of Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), was unlawful, effectively reinstating him to his position. The ruling, issued late Saturday evening, marks a significant legal setback for the Trump administration and underscores the ongoing battle over the independence of government watchdogs.
The Trump administration swiftly filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, signaling their intent to continue challenging the decision.
Hampton Dellinger, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, initiated legal action against the Trump administration in Washington, D.C., federal court following his abrupt dismissal on February 7. Dellinger argued that his firing was politically motivated and violated the established protections designed to ensure the OSC’s independence.
D.C. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, in her Saturday filing, asserted that the court’s ruling aligns with established Supreme Court precedent regarding the independence of government agencies. She emphasized that removing restrictions on Dellinger’s removal would fundamentally undermine the OSC’s defining characteristic: its independence from political interference.
"The court finds that 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," Judge Jackson wrote. "The Court concludes that they must stand."
Judge Jackson’s ruling extends beyond simply reinstating Dellinger; it also includes an injunction against several key Trump administration officials. She specifically enjoined Director of the United States Office of Management and Budget Russ Vought and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, ordering them to recognize Dellinger’s continued tenure as head of the OSC. Notably, the injunction did not extend to President Trump himself.
The judge elaborated on the rationale behind the injunction, emphasizing the importance of protecting the OSC’s independence and preventing any chilling effect on its work.
"It would be ironic, to say the least, and inimical to the ends furthered by the statute if the Special Counsel himself could be chilled in his work by fear of arbitrary or partisan removal," Judge Jackson wrote.
The order explicitly prohibits the enjoined defendants from obstructing or interfering with Dellinger’s performance of his duties, denying him the authority, benefits, or resources of his office, recognizing any Acting Special Counsel in his place, or treating him as if he has been removed. The order further stipulates that no other person should be recognized as Special Counsel or head of the OSC unless and until Dellinger is removed from office in accordance with the established legal process.
Judge Jackson’s decision follows an earlier intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court, which paused the Trump administration’s efforts to dismiss Dellinger. The administration had sought the high court’s intervention to overturn a lower court’s temporary reinstatement of Dellinger.
The dispute over Dellinger’s firing represents the first Trump legal challenge to reach the Supreme Court during his second term, highlighting the significance of the case and its potential implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and independent government agencies.
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision, arguing that the lower court had overstepped its authority and questioning whether courts have the power to reinstate an official who has been fired by the president. While acknowledging that some officials appointed by the president have contested their removal, Gorsuch noted that "those officials have generally sought remedies like backpay, not injunctive relief like reinstatement." Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson voted to deny the administration’s request to OK the firing.
Following the Supreme Court’s pause on the Trump administration’s efforts, Judge Jackson hinted at the possibility of extending a temporary restraining order that had kept Dellinger in his position.
During a hearing on the matter, Judge Jackson characterized the case as "an extraordinarily difficult constitutional issue."
In a statement released at the time, Dellinger expressed his gratitude for the court’s intervention and his commitment to continuing his work as an independent government watchdog.
"I am glad to be able to continue my work as an independent government watchdog and whistleblower advocate," Dellinger said. "I am grateful to the judges and justices who have concluded that I should be allowed to remain on the job while the courts decide whether my office can retain a measure of independence from direct partisan and political control."
Dellinger has consistently argued that, according to the law, he can only be dismissed from his position for documented job performance problems, which were not cited in the email informing him of his termination. His legal team has maintained that the firing was politically motivated and intended to undermine the OSC’s ability to investigate and hold government officials accountable.
The case has drawn significant attention from legal scholars and political observers, raising important questions about the limits of presidential power and the protections afforded to independent government agencies. The outcome of the Trump administration’s appeal will likely have far-reaching consequences for the future of the Office of Special Counsel and its ability to function as an effective check on government misconduct.
The ongoing legal battle also underscores the deep partisan divisions in Washington and the willingness of both sides to engage in protracted legal battles over matters of principle and policy. The case is likely to remain a focus of public attention as it moves through the appeals process.
