A federal judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump’s removal of Hampton Dellinger, the Biden-appointed head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), was unlawful. The decision, issued on Saturday by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, calls into question the boundaries of presidential power and is expected to escalate to the Supreme Court.
Dellinger, who was appointed in 2024 by President Joe Biden to enforce whistleblower laws and investigate unethical practices within federal agencies, was fired by Trump just days after taking office in January 2025. His removal was carried out via a one-sentence email, which led Dellinger to file a lawsuit. In her ruling, Jackson emphasized that such an action undermines the purpose of the Office of Special Counsel, which is designed to operate independently from political influences and ensure that government agencies comply with ethical standards without fear of partisan retribution.
Judge Jackson, an Obama appointee, relied heavily on precedents from previous rulings, particularly the 1935 case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which limited the President’s power to remove certain government officials. She argued that allowing the President to terminate an official like Dellinger, whose role is critical to exposing corruption and protecting whistleblowers, would essentially politicize the agency and make it vulnerable to partisan control. According to Jackson, the independence of the Office of Special Counsel is vital to ensure that it can effectively investigate and address fraud, waste, and abuse without interference from the executive branch.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) quickly responded, condemning Jackson’s ruling as an “extraordinary intrusion” into presidential authority. DOJ lawyers argue that the President’s Article II powers give him broad authority to remove high-level officials from their positions without congressional interference. They contend that Dellinger’s removal was justified because his role involves significant executive power, including rule-making authority that could impact the administration’s policies.
Jackson disagreed with the DOJ’s characterization of Dellinger’s role, stating that the Special Counsel’s responsibilities are not to push an agenda but rather to maintain oversight of government practices and safeguard the rights of whistleblowers. She further emphasized that allowing for arbitrary or politically motivated removals of such officials could erode public trust in the government.
Dellinger’s firing occurred shortly after he had initiated investigations into the dismissals of several federal employees by the Trump administration, which raised suspicions of retaliation against whistleblowers. Dellinger filed a petition with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to reverse these terminations, and his actions triggered a temporary restraining order (TRO) from Jackson in February. This order prevented the President from fully carrying out Dellinger’s removal, allowing the lawsuit to move forward.
In its appeal, the DOJ seeks to have Jackson’s ruling overturned, arguing that the President’s authority to remove senior executive branch officials is well-established and cannot be restricted by Congress. The DOJ’s position highlights past Supreme Court rulings that upheld the President’s power in similar cases, such as when President Biden removed the head of the Social Security Administration in 2021. The DOJ maintains that the firing of Dellinger aligns with these precedents and does not violate constitutional principles.
However, Dellinger’s legal team countered that the firing was part of a broader effort to suppress investigations into the Trump administration’s actions and asserted that the ruling against his termination is in line with established protections for certain government officials. They argue that the OSC is designed to act as a check on the executive branch and cannot be easily removed to avoid scrutiny.
With the dispute now set to be heard by the D.C. Court of Appeals, the case could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court, which will have the final say on the scope of presidential authority in removing federal officials. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of the Office of Special Counsel and the broader balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government.
The stakes are high, as the court’s ruling will not only define the limits of presidential power but also affect the independence of agencies designed to hold the government accountable. As this case progresses, it will likely become a key issue in the ongoing debate over executive power and checks on governmental authority.
