Washington, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday temporarily halted President Donald Trump’s attempt to remove Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), in a case that marks the first major legal confrontation over Trump’s sweeping federal government overhaul.
In a rare procedural move, the justices neither approved nor denied the administration’s emergency request. Instead, the Court issued a brief order saying it would wait before taking further action, citing the fact that lower court proceedings are progressing quickly. A key hearing is set for February 26.
Read More: Trump-Fired Government Watchdog Allowed by Supreme Court to Temporarily Keep Position
Divided Supreme Court
The justices’ split opinions underscored the high-stakes nature of the dispute. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson said they would have rejected the administration’s request outright. In contrast, conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito indicated they would have granted it.
Gorsuch argued that a federal judge had “effectively commanded the president and other executive branch officials to recognize and work with someone whom the president sought to remove from office.”
Trump’s goal is to replace Dellinger with Doug Collins, the current Secretary of Veterans Affairs, as acting head of the OSC.
Broader Context: Trump’s Federal Shakeup
This emergency request is likely the first of many to reach the Supreme Court as Trump pushes forward with his aggressive plan to restructure federal agencies.
Since returning to office, Trump—often aligned with billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk—has fired thousands of federal employees, sought to block certain federal spending initiatives, and attempted to dismantle agencies he deems unnecessary or politically opposed to his agenda, including the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Lower courts have issued multiple temporary restraining orders (TROs) blocking several of these initiatives, frustrating the administration’s momentum.
The Administration’s Argument
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris urged the Supreme Court to step in, criticizing the judiciary’s reliance on TROs.
“This Court should not allow the judiciary to govern by temporary restraining order and supplant the judicial accountability the Constitution ordains,” Harris wrote.
She also addressed public statements from administration officials—such as Vice President JD Vance—that raised concerns about whether the White House would comply with court rulings.
“The Executive Branch takes seriously its constitutional duty to comply with the orders of Article III courts, and it has fulfilled that duty here,” Harris insisted, citing the Constitution’s section on judicial powers.
The Role of the Office of Special Counsel
The OSC is an independent federal agency responsible for safeguarding federal employees’ rights. Its key functions include:
- Whistleblower Protections: Investigating claims and protecting employees from retaliation.
- Political Activity Restrictions: Enforcing the Hatch Act, which limits political involvement by federal workers.
- Regulatory Oversight: Issuing rules and bringing enforcement actions when necessary.
The OSC operates independently from Department of Justice “special counsels,” who handle criminal investigations.
How the Dispute Began
Hampton Dellinger, a former Biden appointee confirmed by the Senate in March 2024, was appointed to a five-year term. Federal law states that the OSC head may only be removed by the president for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.”
On February 7, Trump attempted to dismiss Dellinger, prompting the watchdog chief to file suit.
The legal question centers on whether these statutory protections unconstitutionally limit the president’s authority—an issue the Supreme Court has previously addressed.
In 2020, the Court struck down similar protections for the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, ruling that they infringed on presidential powers. A year later, it issued a comparable ruling in a case involving the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Lower Court Rulings
Federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson of Washington, D.C., issued a stay on February 10, blocking Trump from removing Dellinger while the case moved forward. She later extended the block with a temporary restraining order lasting two weeks.
The Trump administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which upheld Jackson’s decision in a 2–1 vote. After that loss, the administration turned to the Supreme Court.
Political and Legal Significance
This case has quickly become a flashpoint in the broader battle over presidential authority. Trump’s supporters argue that the president must have the ability to swiftly remove officials who obstruct his policy goals. Opponents warn that unchecked executive power could undermine the independence of agencies designed to protect public interest and enforce ethics.
Given the Court’s recent history on similar removal cases, legal analysts believe the justices could ultimately side with Trump. However, the procedural caution shown in Friday’s order suggests the Court wants to review a more developed record before making a potentially precedent-setting ruling.
Frequently Asked Questions:
Who is the watchdog trying to be removed, and what is their role?
The official is Hampton Dellinger, appointed by President Biden as head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). The OSC is an independent federal agency tasked with investigating whistleblower retaliation and enforcing ethics rules like the Hatch Act. Dellinger was confirmed for a five-year term (2024–2029).
Wikipedia
How and when was Dellinger fired?
On February 7, 2025, Dellinger was fired via a one-sentence email that did not cite any reason. The agency’s founding law allows removal only “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
What did Dellinger’s legal team argue to the Supreme Court?
Dellinger’s lawyers urged the Court to let the TRO stand, contending that TROs are usually not appealable and that the substantive constitutional issues did not need immediate resolution.
Why did the Trump administration involve the Supreme Court so quickly?
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued that the TRO was an “unprecedented assault on the separation of powers,” and that allowing it to stand—even temporarily—undermined executive authority.
What did the Supreme Court do?
On February 21, the Supreme Court issued a brief, unsigned order holding the emergency appeal in abeyance, meaning they postponed any immediate decision and allowed Dellinger to remain in office until the lower court’s TRO expired on February 26.
Why did Trump try to fire Dellinger? Was any reason given?
President Trump fired Dellinger via email on February 7, 2025, with no cause specified, contravening the statutory restrictions on removing the OSC head.
Why did the Supreme Court delay rather than rule immediately?
The Court recognized that it typically lacks jurisdiction to intervene in temporary restraining orders (TROs), which are considered short-term emergency measures. The TRO here simply paused Trump’s firing until further proceedings.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to delay action in President Trump’s bid to remove Hampton Dellinger underscores the high stakes of this legal battle—not only for one agency leader but for the broader question of presidential authority over independent watchdogs. While the Court’s move was procedural, the sharp split among justices reveals deep divisions over the balance of power between the executive branch and agencies meant to operate outside direct political influence.
