President Donald Trump’s effort to remove the head of the Office of Special Counsel has been met with strong opposition, with critics calling his Supreme Court appeal “uniquely weak” and lacking merit. The legal battle stems from Trump’s attempt to fire Hampton Dellinger, who was appointed to enforce whistleblower protections. Dellinger’s legal team argues that the administration’s request to the Supreme Court to overturn rulings blocking his termination is an overreach that could open the floodgates to more emergency appeals with no legitimate basis.
In a 42-page opposition filing, Dellinger’s attorneys pushed back against the administration’s legal strategy, contending that the government is trying to blur the lines between jurisdictional and substantive legal arguments to justify an otherwise improper appeal. The filing warns that granting such a request would set a dangerous precedent, leading to more last-minute appeals seeking to bypass standard legal procedures.
The Supreme Court appeal follows multiple legal setbacks for the administration. A lower court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing Dellinger’s removal while the case is under review. The Department of Justice (DOJ) sought an immediate stay of the TRO in both district and appellate courts, arguing that the inability to remove the official hinders the president’s ability to manage the executive branch. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the government’s request, allowing Dellinger to remain in his position for now.
Dellinger’s attorneys argue that the Supreme Court should reject the administration’s emergency appeal, noting that no injunction has been issued directly against the president. They also highlight that the government has admitted to violating an applicable statute, making the case particularly weak. The opposition filing emphasizes that courts rarely grant emergency relief to allow the government to continue violating federal law.
Furthermore, Dellinger’s team contends that the TRO is necessary to maintain the status quo while the courts consider the constitutional issues at hand. They stress that the government has failed to demonstrate any concrete or irreversible harm that would result from keeping the restraining order in place for a short period. The district court, they argue, is moving swiftly to resolve the matter, making the Supreme Court’s intervention unnecessary.
The administration has pointed to past presidential removals of officials, including a 2021 case where a Social Security commissioner was dismissed, as justification for its actions. However, Dellinger’s attorneys argue that this case is different because it involves clear statutory protections for the position in question.
As the legal battle continues, both parties are set to appear in district court on February 26 for a preliminary injunction hearing. The outcome could have broader implications for presidential authority and the limits of executive power when it comes to removing officials tasked with enforcing ethics and whistleblower laws.
