The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court for a swift decision regarding a case involving President Trump’s efforts to remove a government lawyer, Hampton Dellinger, from the Office of Special Counsel, which protects whistle-blowers. A lower court had temporarily restrained the removal, but this order was set to expire. Judge Amy Berman Jackson extended the order for a few days to finalize her opinion. Acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris emphasized the urgency of the situation, citing Dellinger’s actions in opposing firings within executive agencies, and requested the Court to hold their emergency application pending a final district court decision.
On Wednesday, the Trump administration informed the Supreme Court that recent developments in the first case stemming from the president’s rapid succession of executive actions necessitate immediate attention.
Last week, the court ruled that President Trump cannot currently remove a government lawyer who heads the agency responsible for protecting whistle-blowers. However, the court indicated that it would hold the government’s emergency request “in abeyance” and may revisit the issue shortly.
The ruling highlighted that a temporary restraining order from a trial judge that protects the lawyer, Hampton Dellinger, is set to expire on Wednesday.
Following a hearing on Wednesday, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the Federal District Court in Washington extended her order until Saturday to allow time for her to draft an opinion on the case. In a communication to the justices, Sarah M. Harris, the acting solicitor general, stated that the developments since their last action highlighted the urgency for a swift resolution.
Ms. Harris noted that Mr. Dellinger has been active in his capacity as the head of the Office of Special Counsel, filing challenges against the firings of six probationary employees before the Merit Systems Protection Board, which temporarily reinstated them on Tuesday.
“In essence, a dismissed special counsel is exercising executive authority, counter to the elected executive’s wishes, to impede employment decisions made by other executive bodies,” Mr. Harris remarked. Furthermore, she pointed out, “the merit board is overseen by a chairman who herself was dismissed by the president but reinstated by a district court.”
This situation underscores the necessity for the justices to act promptly, Ms. Harris asserted.
“The government respectfully requests that this court, at the very least, continue to hold the application in abeyance if the court does not grant it at this time,” she stated. “Once the district court delivers its final ruling, likely on March 1, it may become essential for the government to seek further relief.”