The Department of Justice (DOJ) is urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to intervene following a district court ruling that deemed the firing of Hampton Dellinger, the Biden-appointed head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), illegal. The DOJ is seeking a response from Dellinger by Wednesday, asking the court to overturn the decision made by Judge Amy Berman Jackson, which could set the stage for a Supreme Court showdown.
Judge Jackson’s ruling, issued on Saturday, found that Dellinger’s removal from office by former President Donald Trump in January was unlawful. Dellinger was reinstated after Jackson issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), which the DOJ is now trying to block, arguing it represents an unwarranted intrusion into the President’s constitutional powers. In its appeal, the DOJ contends that such rulings undermine the president’s ability to remove principal officers of the Executive Branch, asserting that Article II of the Constitution grants the president the sole authority to make these decisions.
The case centers around Dellinger’s role in enforcing whistleblower protections and ethics regulations. After his reinstatement by Judge Jackson, Dellinger launched investigations into alleged unethical actions by members of the Trump administration. This included an inquiry into the firings of six federal employees by Trump, which Dellinger sought to reverse. The DOJ argues that this was an overreach of executive power, claiming that Dellinger is using his position to challenge the decisions made by the president, even after his termination.
The DOJ’s motion to stay Jackson’s order describes Dellinger’s actions as an abuse of his executive authority, with the department calling it “rogue” behavior that contravenes the separation of powers. The DOJ emphasizes that no court has historically intervened in the president’s ability to remove agency heads, and this decision threatens to establish a dangerous precedent for future executive actions. The department’s lawyers argue that previous cases, including one involving President Biden’s removal of the Social Security Administration head, highlight the president’s discretion in making such decisions without judicial interference.
Judge Jackson, however, dismissed these arguments in her ruling. She explained that the OSC’s role is to act independently, investigating and exposing corruption, fraud, and other unethical actions within the federal government without fear of political reprisal. Jackson stated that the statute that created the OSC requires the Special Counsel to remain free from partisan influence to carry out his duties effectively. She highlighted that the office is designed to ensure that whistleblowers can report wrongdoing without suffering retaliation, a goal that would be undermined if the Special Counsel could be removed arbitrarily.
Jackson’s ruling also emphasized that the Office of Special Counsel was established to operate independently from the political pressures of the administration. The law, she argued, mandates that the Special Counsel’s work be done without influence from the president or Congress, ensuring fairness in its investigations and recommendations. The judge noted that the independence of the OSC was critical to its mission, and any attempt to undermine this independence through politically motivated dismissals would be detrimental to its purpose.
As the case moves forward, the DOJ is pushing for the appeals court to intervene swiftly, arguing that if left intact, Jackson’s order would have far-reaching consequences on the president’s ability to manage the executive branch. The outcome of this case could ultimately have significant implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary, and it may soon find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
