Biden Appointee Fired Again After Judge’s Reinstatement Order

I don't know who this is, man in suit with thumbs up.

A federal appeals court has given President Trump the authority to remove Biden appointee Hampton Dellinger from the Office of Special Counsel, reversing an earlier judge’s order to reinstate him while legal battles continue.

Key Takeaways

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has vacated District Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s order that blocked Dellinger’s removal
Dellinger, appointed by Biden in 2024 for a five-year term, had been fired by Trump in February without stated cause
The case centers on whether the president can fire a special counsel without proving “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance”
Dellinger had been actively challenging Trump administration firings of probationary federal employees
The case is expected to reach the Supreme Court, with briefing materials due by April 11th

Appeals Court Overrules District Judge’s Decision

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has sided with the Trump administration in a significant legal battle over executive power. The court lifted an injunction that had previously blocked President Trump from removing Hampton Dellinger from his position as Special Counsel. This decision effectively allows the administration to proceed with Dellinger’s termination while his lawsuit challenging the firing continues through the legal system. The three-judge panel has expedited the case, setting a deadline of April 11th for all briefing materials.

Dellinger, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate in 2024 for a five-year term, received a termination notice from the White House on February 7 without specified justification. Following his initial dismissal, Dellinger took legal action, arguing that under federal law, special counsels can only be removed for specific causes.

The Legal Arguments at Stake

The core of this dispute revolves around the interpretation of federal statutes and constitutional principles regarding executive authority. Dellinger’s legal team has maintained that the law protects the Special Counsel from arbitrary removal, specifying that such officials can only be dismissed “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson initially agreed with this position and ordered Dellinger’s reinstatement while the case progressed.

The Trump administration has countered this interpretation, arguing that the law protecting the special counsel from removal is unconstitutional. This position aligns with recent Supreme Court precedents that have expanded presidential authority to remove certain appointed officials. The administration’s legal team has drawn parallels to a previous ruling that allowed President Trump to dismiss the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Supreme Court Suspends Dismissal of Hampton Dellinger Appointed by Biden Administration, Will Remain in Position Until February 26

February 22: The U.S. Supreme Court has halted an attempt by the Trump administration to remove Hampton Dellinger, who was appointed by former… pic.twitter.com/r9iCstaXUC

— CSB News USA (@csbnewsus) February 22, 2025

Implications for Federal Workforce Protection

The Office of Special Counsel plays a crucial role in protecting the federal workforce from prohibited personnel practices and investigating whistleblower claims. During his brief reinstatement period, Dellinger had actively opposed Trump administration personnel decisions, particularly regarding probationary employees. He notably secured a ruling from a government panel that over 5,000 employees fired by the Trump administration at the U.S. Department of Agriculture should be reinstated.

“Calling on all federal agencies to voluntarily and immediately rescind any unlawful terminations of probationary employees,” Dellinger said.

Dellinger’s attorneys have raised concerns that allowing the president to remove the special counsel without cause could undermine the office’s independence and ability to protect whistleblowers. This argument highlights the tension between executive authority and the need for independent oversight within the federal government. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the balance of power in Washington and the protections afforded to federal employees.

Next Steps in the Legal Process

While the appeals court has allowed Dellinger’s removal to proceed temporarily, the legal battle is far from over. Dellinger is expected to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court, which had previously held a motion to vacate Judge Jackson’s temporary restraining order “in abeyance” while considering the merits of the case. The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will likely set an important precedent regarding presidential authority over independent agencies and offices.

Cathy Harris, Chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board, has been allowed to join the proceedings as amicus, indicating the broader institutional interests at stake in this legal controversy. The case represents a significant test of executive power and the structural protections designed to ensure the independence of government watchdog agencies from political interference. Legal experts anticipate a final resolution could take several months as the case proceeds through the appellate process.