A federal judge has determined the dismissal of Hampton Dellinger, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, to be in violation of legal precedent.
Fox News reported that a decision by a district judge in Washington, D.C. found President Donald Trump's removal of Dellinger from his role at the Office of Special Counsel unlawful, requiring his immediate reinstatement.
Hampton Dellinger's appointment to head the Office of Special Counsel began under the Biden administration. However, on February 7th, the Trump administration terminated his role.
The decision was challenged, and Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled against the dismissal, highlighting its inconsistency with established precedents.
The basis of Judge Jackson’s decision drew on the history and statutory framework that established the independent functions of the Office of Special Counsel.
Her ruling underscored the office's intended independence, suggesting that arbitrary or partisan dismissals could undermine its foundational principles.
"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," Judge Jackson wrote in her detailed opinion.
Shortly after, the Trump administration announced its intention to appeal the ruling, advancing the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Separately, the Trump administration's attempt to vacate a lower court’s prior judgment to reinstate Dellinger had previously been paused by the Supreme Court.
The case marks the first instance in President Trump's second term to escalate to the Supreme Court. Prior to Judge Jackson's ruling, when the administration attempted to challenge the lower court’s temporary reinstatement of Dellinger, the high court justices showed conflicting stances.
Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed out in his dissent that plaintiff officials typically request solutions such as back pay rather than reinstatement—underscoring his disagreement with the decision for active reinstatement.
Meanwhile, other justices, including Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, resolved to reject the administration’s plea, thereby permitting Dellinger to continue his duties for the duration of the lawsuit.
Central to the dispute is the debate over the conditions under which a special counsel can be removed. Dellinger himself argued that his termination must be justified by legitimate job performance issues—a standard not met in this instance.
As the legal journey progressed, Judge Jackson contemplated extending a temporary restraining order to maintain Dellinger’s position until a final decision is reached
As events unfold, the appeal filed by the administration extends the legal tussle over the correct interpretation of the role and autonomy of the Office of Special Counsel. The case could further define the balance of powers and protections afforded to its leaders.
The next proceedings at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court will be pivotal in resolving whether Dellinger’s firing aligns with or contravenes the legal autonomy initially granted to the office.
Stay tuned as this significant legal dispute continues to develop, offering new clarity—or contention—over the power dynamics within government oversight bodies.
