March 1, 2025 | Washington, D.C. – In a significant setback for President Donald Trump’s sweeping efforts to reshape the federal government, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled Saturday that his attempt to remove Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), was “unlawful.” The decision, handed down late in the evening, reinstates Dellinger to his post and ignites a constitutional clash over presidential power that is all but certain to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Within an hour of the ruling, the Trump administration filed an appeal, signaling a rapid escalation of the legal battle.
The Background: A Firing Sparks Controversy
Hampton Dellinger, appointed by President Joe Biden in 2024 to a five-year term as head of the OSC, found himself at the center of a political firestorm last month when Trump, newly returned to the White House, moved to oust him. The OSC, an independent federal agency, is tasked with protecting federal employees from prohibited personnel practices—such as retaliation for whistleblowing—and enforcing the Hatch Act, which limits partisan political activities by government workers. Dellinger’s dismissal came via a curt email from the White House Presidential Personnel Office on February 7, 2025, offering no specific justification beyond the administration’s apparent desire to install its own appointee.
Dellinger swiftly sued, arguing that under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, he could only be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office”—none of which were cited in his termination notice. The case marks the first major legal challenge to Trump’s aggressive push to assert control over the executive branch in his second term, a campaign that includes mass firings of probationary federal workers and efforts to dismantle what he calls the “deep state.”
The Legal Battle Unfolds
The dispute quickly escalated through the courts. On February 10, Judge Jackson issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking Dellinger’s removal, a move that prompted an emergency appeal from the Trump administration to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In a 2-1 decision on February 15, the appeals court declined to intervene, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to review the TRO because it was not a final judgment. The administration then turned to the Supreme Court, which, on February 21, opted to hold the request in abeyance—effectively leaving Dellinger in place—until Jackson’s initial order expired on February 26.
Undeterred, Dellinger pressed his case, leveraging his temporary reinstatement to challenge broader administration actions, including the firing of six probationary federal workers, which he deemed potentially illegal. On February 26, Jackson extended her TRO through March 1, giving her time to craft a final ruling. That ruling arrived Saturday, delivering a decisive blow to Trump’s plans.
The Ruling: A Victory for Independence
In her 67-page opinion, Judge Jackson declared Dellinger’s firing unlawful, arguing that the OSC’s independence is “inextricably intertwined” with its mission. She granted a permanent injunction barring the administration from treating Dellinger as removed or interfering with his duties, while also issuing a declaratory judgment affirming his status as Special Counsel. Notably, the injunction applies to officials like the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Treasury Secretary but stops short of directly enjoining Trump himself—a nod to the delicate balance of judicial authority over the executive.
Jackson rooted her decision in both statutory and constitutional grounds. She emphasized that Congress intentionally shielded the OSC head from arbitrary dismissal to ensure the agency could protect whistleblowers and enforce merit-based personnel rules without political pressure. “It would be ironic, to say the least, and inimical to the ends furthered by the statute if the Special Counsel himself could be chilled in his work by fear of arbitrary or partisan removal,” she wrote. Dismissing the administration’s claim that Dellinger wielded “significant executive authority” requiring presidential oversight, Jackson countered, “This is not significant executive authority. It is hardly executive authority at all.”
The judge also navigated Supreme Court precedent, noting that while recent rulings have curbed Congress’s ability to restrict the president’s removal power over single-director agencies, the OSC’s unique role as a watchdog justified its protections. “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: its independence,” she concluded.
The Administration’s Response: An Appeal to the High Court
The Trump administration wasted no time in challenging the ruling. Less than an hour after Jackson’s decision was filed, the Justice Department lodged a notice of appeal with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the 1978 statute’s removal protections infringe on Trump’s Article II powers under the Constitution. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, who has spearheaded the administration’s legal efforts, had previously warned the Supreme Court that Jackson’s earlier orders crossed “a constitutional red line” by thwarting Trump’s ability to shape executive-branch policy in his “critical first days.”
The DOJ contends that Dellinger’s continued tenure undermines Trump’s authority to install loyalists in key positions, a cornerstone of his second-term agenda. The appeal is widely expected to bypass the D.C. Circuit—given its prior reluctance to intervene—and land before the Supreme Court, where a conservative 6-3 majority could prove sympathetic to the administration’s expansive view of presidential power.
Dellinger’s Defiance and Broader Implications
For his part, Dellinger hailed the ruling as a vindication of his office’s mission. “I’m glad and grateful to see the court confirm the importance and legality of the job protections Congress afforded my position,” he said in a statement Saturday night. “My efforts to protect federal employees generally, and whistleblowers in particular, from unlawful treatment will continue.”
Beyond Dellinger’s personal victory, the decision carries far-reaching implications. It bolsters resistance to Trump’s broader purge of federal workers, including the halted firings of probationary employees that Dellinger challenged earlier this week. On February 24, he recommended that the Merit Systems Protection Board block those terminations, a request that took effect Thursday after the board declined to act, further frustrating administration efforts tied to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), co-led by Elon Musk.
The ruling also reignites a decades-old debate over the balance between presidential authority and congressional oversight. Legal scholars predict a “momentous battle” at the Supreme Court, with potential ramifications for the structure of independent agencies across the government. “This is about more than one man,” said former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo on Fox News. “It’s about whether the president can run the executive branch as the Constitution intends.”
What’s Next?
As of 8:55 PM PST on March 1, the legal saga is far from over. The Trump administration’s appeal will test the limits of executive power in a court that has recently favored broader presidential discretion. Meanwhile, Dellinger remains in his post, a thorn in the side of an administration eager to consolidate control. The case’s trajectory suggests a Supreme Court ruling could come within months, if not weeks, given the urgency of the constitutional questions at stake.
For now, Judge Jackson’s decision stands as a rare check on Trump’s early second-term ambitions, amplifying tensions between the judiciary and an executive branch determined to remake the federal government in its image. As the nation watches, the clash over Hampton Dellinger’s fate may well redefine the boundaries of power in Washington for years to come.
