Watchdog agency chief tells justices not to get involved in firing dispute
EMERGENCY DOCKET
on Feb 18, 2025
at 5:50 pm
The district court is fast-tracking the case, Dellinger told the justices, and could decide it “in ways that avoid any need for this Court’s intervention.” (Katie Barlow)
Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger told the justices on Tuesday to leave in place a federal judge’s temporary order to reinstate him to his job. The head of the independent agency responsible for whistleblower protection has said that the Trump Administration’s appeal for intervention on Sunday is a meritless effort to “declare five-alarm” fire over the order. All that the order by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson accomplishes, Dellinger told the justices, is to maintain the status quo – allowing him to remain in office – “while the district court engages in extremely expedited proceedings to address the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.”
President Donald Trump fired Dellinger in an email on Feb. 7. Dellinger had been the head of the agency since 2024, when he was appointed by then-President Joe Biden to serve a five-year term. Dellinger was reinstated for 14 days by Jackson on February 12, after a temporary restraining. The U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, rejected the government’s application because it lacked authority to do so. On Feb. 16, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to weigh in. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris called Jackson’s order an “unprecedented assault on the separation of powers that warrants immediate relief.”
Dellinger filed his brief opposing the Trump administration’s request at the court on Tuesday afternoon, nearly a full day before the deadline set for him by Chief Justice John Roberts, who handles emergency appeals from the District of Columbia. He argued that the Trump administration was asking the justices for an exception to the centuries-old rule that temporary restraint orders could not be appealed. Dellinger warned the justices in his case that allowing the government to appeal would lead to a flood of appeals for temporary restraining order. Dellinger said that the government did not contest the fact that it violated federal law by firing Dellinger without good reason. Dellinger noted that the case was moving quickly in the district courts, which had fast-tracked it and could decide the case “in a way that would avoid any need for this Court to intervene (or at least make a proper record).”
As a matter of practicality, Dellinger noted that the case was moving quickly in the districts courts, which had fast-tracked it and could determine it “in a way that would avoid any need for this Court to intervene (or at the He argues that the Trump administration will not win the case on the merits of the claim that the law establishing the Office of Special Counsel is in violation of the Constitution. Although the Supreme Court in recent years has struck down limits on the president’s power to remove the heads of other federal agencies, in doing so it made clear that its rationale did not necessarily apply to the Office of Special Counsel because it deals only with the federal government and not private individuals or companies.
Moreover, Dellinger added, Congress intended to give the Office of Special Counsel a degree of independence to ensure that it could effectively protect whistleblowers. Dellinger said that if the official who is charged with protecting whistleblowers was vulnerable to retaliation or removal for taking on politically-charged or inconvenient case, the OSC’s whistleblower purpose could fail when it was most needed.
The Trump Administration will have an opportunity to respond to Dellinger’s objection. The justices can then act at any time on the request.
