Trump Administration Appeals To Supreme Court Over Firing Of Government Watchdog

The Trump administration has filed its first Supreme Court appeal of the new term, seeking approval to remove Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC)—a federal agency that protects whistleblowers. The case marks a critical test in the administration’s broader effort to reshape the executive branch’s power over federal agencies.

Dellinger, who was abruptly dismissed via a one-sentence email, is among several federal watchdogs who have challenged their removals, arguing that their terminations were illegal. The OSC plays a crucial role in enforcing the Hatch Act, investigating partisan political discrimination, racial discrimination, nepotism, and coerced political activity in the federal workforce.

Dellinger has criticized the recent wave of firings, calling his office’s work “needed now more than ever” amid what he describes as an unprecedented purge of federal employees with civil service protections.

On Wednesday, Judge Amy Berman Jackson temporarily reinstated Dellinger pending a February 26 hearing, ruling that the 1978 law establishing the OSC clearly intended to shield the office from political interference. Under the law, a special counsel can only be removed by the president for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance—not at will.

The Trump Justice Department has now petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn Jackson’s ruling, arguing that her injunction violates presidential authority by forcing the White House to retain an agency head.

“Until now, as far as we are aware, no court in American history has wielded an injunction to force the president to retain an agency head,” Acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris wrote in the filing, obtained by the Associated Press.

The Supreme Court is not expected to respond before Tuesday, as it remains in recess for the Presidents’ Day holiday.

Legal experts say a ruling in favor of the Trump administration could overturn decades of precedent protecting Congress’s ability to insulate independent agencies from presidential control.

The administration argues that allowing Jackson’s order to stand could set a dangerous precedent, encouraging judges to block further government actions in the roughly 70 lawsuits Trump is currently facing. It cites recent cases where courts have intervened, including:

• Lifting a foreign aid funding freeze
• Blocking Elon Musk’s “department of government efficiency” team from accessing Treasury Department data

Dellinger, in a statement to Politico, defended his record and insisted his removal is unlawful.

“Since my arrival at OSC last year, I could not be more proud of all we have accomplished. The agency’s work has earned praise from whistleblower advocates, veterans, and others. The effort to remove me has no factual or legal basis—none—which means it is illegal.”

The Office of Special Counsel is distinct from Justice Department special counsels, such as Jack Smith, who are appointed by the attorney general for specific investigations.

With the Supreme Court set to weigh in, the case could have significant consequences for the future of independent federal agencies and the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches.