Federal Judge Rules Against Trump in Battle Over Special Counsel’s Removal
In a significant legal decision, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington ruled on Saturday that President Donald Trump’s effort to remove the head of a federal watchdog agency was unlawful. The case centers on Hampton Dellinger, who leads the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent agency tasked with protecting federal employees from illegal personnel practices and whistleblowing retaliation. Dellinger sued Trump after being fired, arguing that his removal violated legal protections that allow a special counsel to be ousted only for specific causes, such as inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. Judge Jackson, nominated by former President Barack Obama, swiftly reinstated Dellinger while his case proceeded, marking a setback for the Trump administration in its bid to exert control over the agency.
The Legal Battle and Its Implications
The ruling underscores the importance of the OSC’s independence from political influence. Judge Jackson rejected the Trump administration’s argument that the legal protections for the special counsel are unconstitutional because they limit the president’s ability to appoint preferred leaders to executive branch agencies. In her decision, Jackson emphasized that the OSC’s role is to operate above partisan politics, ensuring that federal employees are not subjected to prohibited practices or retaliation for whistleblowing. She wrote, “The Special Counsel is supposed to withstand the winds of political change and help ensure that no government servant of either party becomes the subject of prohibited employment practices or faces reprisals for calling out wrongdoing.” Allowing the president to remove the special counsel at will, she argued, would undermine the agency’s critical mission and create a chilling effect on its operations.
The Justice Department’s Response and Next Steps
The Justice Department wasted no time in signaling its intention to challenge the ruling, filing court papers to appeal the decision to the Washington, D.C., federal appeals court. This case has already seen significant attention, having previously reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which temporarily allowed Dellinger to remain in his position. The latest ruling comes as Dellinger is actively challenging the Trump administration’s firing of probationary workers as part of a broader overhaul of the federal workforce. Earlier this week, a federal board halted the terminations of several probationary employees after Dellinger raised concerns that their firings may have been unlawful. Dellinger, who was appointed to a five-year term by President Joe Biden in 2024, expressed gratitude for the court’s validation of his position, stating, “My efforts to protect federal employees generally, and whistleblowers in particular, from unlawful treatment will continue.”
The Unique Role of the Office of Special Counsel
The OSC plays a critical role in upholding federal workforce protections and investigating claims of retaliation against whistleblowers. It also enforces the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan political activities while on duty. Dellinger’s firing occurred amid reports that some Trump administration employees were openly supporting the president’s policies on social media, potentially violating the Hatch Act. The OSC’s independence is essential to its effectiveness, as it must act as a neutral arbiter in cases involving political or retaliatory actions. As Dellinger explained, “If I don’t have independence, if I can be removed for no good reason, federal employees are going to have no good reason to come to me.” Without autonomy, the OSC risks losing the trust of the very employees it is tasked with protecting.
The Broader Significance of the Case
The legal battle over Dellinger’s removal highlights a broader conflict between the Trump administration and the independence of executive branch agencies. In court filings, the Justice Department has argued that lower courts overstepped their authority by blocking Dellinger’s firing, claiming that such decisionsPOSITE a “constitutional red line” by preventing the president from shaping the agenda of executive agencies, particularly during the critical early days of a new administration. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris urged the Supreme Court to intervene, asserting that allowing the OSC’s removal protections to stand would improperly limit the president’s authority. Dellinger’s case, however, challenges this view, asserting that Congress intentionally designed the OSC to operate independently to safeguard its mission.
A Legal Fight Likely Headed to the Supreme Court
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and independent agencies. While Judge Jackson’s ruling is a significant victory for Dellinger and proponents of the OSC’s independence, the Justice Department’s appeal ensures that the matter will continue to be contested. The case is likely to return to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will ultimately decide whether the special counsel’s removal protections are constitutional. For now, Dellinger remains in his position, continuing his efforts to protect federal employees and whistleblowers from unlawful treatment. The resolution of this case will set an important precedent for the independence of watchdog agencies and the limits of presidential authority in shaping the executive branch.
