Federal Judge Declares Trump's Dismissal of Special Counsel Chief Unlawful, Orders Reinstatement

 

Court Rules Against Trump Administration's Decision, Appeal Filed Immediately

A federal district judge in Washington, D.C., ruled late Saturday that President Donald Trump’s removal of the Office of Special Counsel’s head was unlawful, allowing him to retain his position. Shortly after the ruling, the Trump administration filed an appeal.

Hampton Dellinger, originally appointed by former President Joe Biden to lead the Office of Special Counsel, challenged his February 7 dismissal by the Trump administration in federal court in Washington, D.C.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the D.C. District Court determined in her Saturday ruling that the decision to remove Dellinger was "unlawful," aligning with Supreme Court precedent.

Following Jackson’s ruling, the Trump administration promptly filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Jackson emphasized in her ruling that 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. The Court concludes that they must stand."

The judge issued an injunction against the defendants in the case, including Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russ Vought and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, directing them to recognize Dellinger’s authority. However, Trump himself was not subjected to the injunction.

"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," Jackson stated in her decision.

The judge further instructed in her order that the enjoined officials "must not obstruct or interfere with his performance of his duties; they must not deny him the authority, benefits, or resources of his office; they must not recognize any Acting Special Counsel in his place; and they must not treat him in any way as if he has been removed, or recognize any other person as Special Counsel or as the head of the Office of Special Counsel, unless and until he is removed from office" in compliance with the statute governing his role.

This ruling follows a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to temporarily halt the Trump administration’s efforts to remove Dellinger. The administration had sought to have a lower court’s temporary reinstatement of Dellinger overturned.

This legal dispute marks the first significant case involving Trump’s executive authority to reach the Supreme Court during his second term.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito dissented, arguing that the lower court had exceeded its jurisdiction and questioned whether courts have the authority to reinstate officials dismissed by the president. Gorsuch noted in his opinion that "those officials have generally sought remedies like backpay, not injunctive relief like reinstatement."

Meanwhile, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson voted against the administration’s request to approve Dellinger’s firing.

Shortly after the Supreme Court's intervention, Jackson suggested that she might extend the temporary restraining order that had kept Dellinger in office.

Jackson described the case as "an extraordinarily difficult constitutional issue" during a hearing.

Dellinger responded to the ruling, saying, "I am glad to be able to continue my work as an independent government watchdog and whistleblower advocate. 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 maintained that his removal was unlawful, asserting that he could only be dismissed for issues related to job performance, a reason that was not cited in the email terminating his position.