The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily halted President Donald Trump’s attempt to remove Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), allowing him to remain in his role at least until February 26. The decision delivers a short-term win for Dellinger, who was appointed by President Joe Biden in 2024 for a five-year term but faced abrupt dismissal soon after Trump’s return to the White House.
In a brief, unsigned order issued Friday, the conservative-leaning court declined to grant Trump’s emergency appeal. The move preserves a lower court’s temporary restraining order (TRO) that paused Dellinger’s removal, giving time for further legal proceedings. However, the order leaves unresolved the deeper constitutional questions about presidential authority to remove certain independent officials.
Read More: California requests billions in federal aid for wildfire recovery
Case Background
Hampton Dellinger leads the OSC, an independent federal agency created under the Carter administration to protect whistleblowers and investigate claims of retaliation against federal employees. The role comes with legal protections allowing removal only “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
On February 7, the White House Presidential Personnel Office sent Dellinger a short email notifying him of his termination—without citing any of the statutory removal conditions. The action quickly triggered litigation over whether the president can bypass such protections, a fight with implications for other independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Reserve.
First Major Supreme Court Case of Trump’s Second Term
The Dellinger case marks the first matter tied to Trump’s second-term agenda to reach the Supreme Court. Since taking office again last month, Trump has unleashed a flurry of executive actions, firings, and controversial appointments—including bringing tech billionaire Elon Musk into government work. Many of these actions are already facing legal challenges in lower courts.
Pending before the justices was a narrow procedural issue: whether the temporary lower court order keeping Dellinger in office should be blocked immediately. The Supreme Court chose to maintain the TRO until it expires on February 26, when a district court will hold a hearing on whether to extend it through a preliminary injunction.
Split Opinions on the Bench
Four justices—two conservatives and two liberals—dissented. Conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito argued the lower court overstepped, with Gorsuch writing that it “grappled with none” of the historical and legal precedents before reinstating Dellinger.
Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson took the opposite view, saying they would have denied the government’s emergency request to lift the TRO, though they provided no written explanation.
Expert Insight
According to Steve Vladeck, a Supreme Court analyst and Georgetown University law professor, the court’s decision likely reflects a desire to avoid setting a precedent that could invite “dozens of emergency requests” in similar cases involving short-term restraining orders.
“This way, the court avoids endorsing that procedural move, while preserving the ability to resolve whether Dellinger should or should not be allowed to stay in his job as soon as the middle of next week,” Vladeck explained.
Broader Stakes for Independent Agencies
At its core, the case raises questions about the extent of presidential authority over officials who enjoy statutory job protections. Congress designed certain agencies to operate independently, insulating them from direct political pressure. This structure allows entities like the Federal Reserve to make economic decisions—such as setting interest rates—without presidential interference.
During his first term, Trump repeatedly pressured the Fed to lower rates, which could boost stock markets and economic growth in the short term but risk fueling inflation. The board largely ignored him. If the president gains the power to freely remove such officials, critics fear it could undermine the independence and credibility of these institutions.
Law professors have warned the Supreme Court that a ruling in Trump’s favor could have “highly undesirable implications” for the economy if extended to agencies like the Fed.
Legal Battle in Lower Courts
The legal dispute began when a federal district court issued a TRO blocking Trump from removing Dellinger, citing the need for time to evaluate the case. Normally, such short-term orders cannot be appealed, but the Trump administration challenged it anyway.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected that appeal in a 2-1 decision, with the majority—two Biden appointees—finding the TRO unreviewable. The dissenting judge, appointed by Trump, argued in favor of granting the administration’s request to end the restraining order.
Frequently Asked Questions:
Who is Hampton Dellinger?
Hampton Dellinger is the head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, appointed by President Joe Biden in 2024 for a five-year term. His agency investigates whistleblower complaints and protects federal employees from retaliation.
What did the Supreme Court rule?
The Court declined Trump’s emergency request to remove Dellinger immediately, allowing a lower court’s temporary restraining order to remain in effect until February 26, 2025.
What happens on February 26?
A district court will decide whether to extend the temporary block on Dellinger’s removal through a preliminary injunction. That decision could be appealed, potentially returning the case to the Supreme Court.
Why is this case important beyond Dellinger’s job?
The outcome could redefine presidential power over independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve, which have been structured to operate free from political pressure.
How does this relate to the Federal Reserve?
During his first term, Trump criticized the Fed for not lowering interest rates. If presidents gain broader removal powers, they could replace board members with loyalists, undermining the Fed’s independence and potentially affecting economic policy.
Which justices dissented and why?
Conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito said the lower court overstepped, while liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson believed the emergency request should have been denied entirely.
What is the Office of Special Counsel (OSC)?
The OSC is an independent federal agency created during the Carter administration. It enforces whistleblower protections, investigates prohibited personnel practices, and ensures merit-based federal employment decisions. It is not related to special counsels who oversee criminal investigations, such as Robert Mueller or Jack Smith.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s temporary decision to keep Hampton Dellinger in his role underscores the high stakes in the ongoing battle over presidential authority and the independence of federal agencies. While the ruling offers Dellinger a brief reprieve, it does not resolve the core constitutional questions at play. The upcoming district court hearing on February 26 could shape the future of the Office of Special Counsel and set a precedent affecting multiple independent agencies.
