The Supreme Court on Friday intervened in the Trump administration’s effort to oust Hampton Dellinger, who leads the Office of Special Counsel, by choosing not to immediately review an emergency request. The decision came as the justices opted to wait for the swift progress of lower court cases, scheduling a hearing on February 26 to address the matter more definitively.
In a rare and cautious step, the court did not grant or deny the request outright, instead holding it in abeyance. This decision reflects the ongoing legal tug-of-war over the administration’s broader plans to significantly reorganize the federal government by replacing officials and altering agency leadership. Justices were notably split, with liberal members Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson favoring a denial, while conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito expressed support for granting the request.
The administration, which aims to appoint Doug Collins, the secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, as the acting head of the agency, has mounted several legal challenges amid a series of lower court rulings that have put a temporary stop to many of its initiatives. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued that temporary restraining orders issued by federal judges should not undermine the constitutionally prescribed accountability of the judiciary, emphasizing the importance of following judicial orders as dictated by Article III of the Constitution.
The Office of Special Counsel, established to oversee federal employee issues—including protections for whistleblowers and the enforcement of political activity restrictions—has a role distinct from special counsels appointed by the Justice Department. Dellinger, who took office in March 2024 after being selected by former President Biden and confirmed by the Senate, faces a five-year term security that the president can only interrupt for reasons such as inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.
Despite similar constraints on presidential power previously being ruled unconstitutional in cases related to other agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the administration pressed forward with its plan to remove Dellinger. A federal judge had already issued a stay and later a temporary restraining order, with the Trump team appealing these decisions when a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against them in a narrow 2-1 vote before ultimately turning to the Supreme Court for a resolution.
7 Comments
The Truth
“How many excuses will be made before we finally demand decisive action? The courts are literally holding us back.”
Answer
“Protecting someone with a tainted record just to keep judicial traditions? That’s a lame excuse for inaction.”
The Truth
“This is nothing but a political power play. The moment to restore accountability was when the president took office.”
Answer
“By hindering the president’s plan, the court is essentially defending bureaucratic inefficiency. Not cool.”
Raphael
“Article III isn’t just a guideline—it’s a guardrail against political overreach. The justices are setting a solid example.”
Comandante
“I’m sick of the judiciary using procedural delays as a shield for outdated practices. We need movement, not gridlock.”
Coccinella
“It’s infuriating how the court is playing politics instead of giving a clear-cut decision. We deserve timely accountability.”