A federal judge blocked President Trump from removing Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel, ruling it violated the law requiring due cause. Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a permanent injunction, ensuring Dellinger’s continued authority in protecting federal whistle-blowers. The ruling emphasized the importance of the office’s independence to prevent political interference. Despite the Trump administration’s arguments for removal, Jackson stated Dellinger could not be dismissed “on a whim” and highlighted the office’s crucial role in exposing unethical practices. The administration has begun an appeals process, which may reach the Supreme Court.
A federal judge in Washington on Saturday prevented President Trump from removing the head of a federal oversight agency, determining that the effort to dismiss the official without just cause breached the law.
In an order issued Saturday evening, Judge Amy Berman Jackson granted a permanent injunction to the government, ensuring that Hampton Dellinger can continue leading the Office of Special Counsel, which safeguards federal whistle-blowers.
The ruling mandated that the Trump administration acknowledge Mr. Dellinger’s authority in his role, prohibiting any actions that would “treat him in any way as if he has been removed” or otherwise disrupt his duties.
The administration quickly sought to contest the ruling, initiating an appeals process that is likely to reach the Supreme Court.
In a detailed 67-page opinion elaborating on the order, Judge Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia highlighted the distinct responsibilities assigned to the office when it was established under a law from 1978. She emphasized its crucial role in protecting federal whistle-blowers, a role that she argued would be jeopardized if Mr. Dellinger were to be dismissed without lawful cause.
“His independence is what qualifies him to oversee the long-established structure meant to prevent executive officials from distributing federal jobs to unqualified individuals based on political favoritism—a system Congress deemed unacceptable over a century ago,” she stated. “The position would lose its effectiveness if the special counsel were forced to operate under the threat of arbitrary removal hanging over him.”
Mr. Dellinger was confirmed for the position by the Senate in 2024 for a five-year term.
However, on February 7, he received a memo from the White House informing him of his dismissal without any reason provided. Judge Jackson subsequently issued a temporary order allowing Mr. Dellinger to retain his position while litigation proceeded.
During a hearing on Wednesday, attorneys for the government argued that Mr. Dellinger’s position was akin to that of other federal agency heads who are appointed by the president. They contended that the office Mr. Dellinger supervises has considerable investigatory powers, asserting that as president, Mr. Trump should have the ability to appoint someone aligned with his agenda to lead the office.
Mr. Dellinger’s legal team characterized the role as limited in authority, possessing only the capability to initiate inquiries without the power to enforce subpoenas. Nevertheless, they maintained that the position, as outlined by Congress, ought to be accompanied by independence and certain legal safeguards.
Earlier this week, Mr. Dellinger indicated that the Office of Special Counsel was examining the president’s decision to terminate thousands of probationary workers. The federal Merit Systems Protection Board announced it would reinstate six employees while the watchdog agency continued its investigation.
Judge Jackson’s decision to protect Mr. Dellinger came a week after the Supreme Court opted not to remove the temporary hold on his dismissal. Government lawyers argued to the court that Mr. Trump possessed broad executive authority to appoint his chosen candidate to the head of the office.
Although the justices’ order not to intervene was unsigned, some members of the court hinted that they may revisit the issue.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated they would have outright rejected the Trump administration’s plea for Supreme Court involvement. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, joined by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., registered a dissent, noting that it “may not yet have ripened into an appealable order” in the majority’s view but that the case could soon return to the court.
Any future challenge in front of the court could serve as an early indication of the justices’ willingness to limit Mr. Trump’s executive authority, but Judge Jackson’s order underscored her belief that the Office of Special Counsel should remain free from political influence.
She stated that unless there was a more substantial motivation tied to his performance, Mr. Dellinger could not be dismissed “on a whim or out of personal animosity.”
“The role of the Special Counsel is to investigate and reveal unethical or illegal activities directed at federal employees,” she elaborated, “and to help guarantee that whistle-blowers who report fraud, waste, and abuse within government agencies can do so without facing retaliation.”
“It would be quite ironic,” she noted, if the “special counsel himself could be dissuaded from his work due to fear of arbitrary or politically motivated dismissal.”
Adam Liptak contributed reporting.