Supreme Court halts Trump attempt to fire head of whistleblower office – for now

The unsigned order keeping on job the head of the federal agency that protects government whistleblowers is the court’s first word on President Donald Trump’s agenda. 

|
AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File
The Supreme Court building stands in Washington, June 30, 2024.

The Supreme Court on Friday temporarily kept on the job the head of the federal agency that protects government whistleblowers, in its first word on the many legal fights over President Donald Trump’s second-term agenda.

The justices said in an unsigned order that Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel, could remain in his job at least until Wednesday. That’s when a lower-court order temporarily protecting him expires.

With a bare majority of five justices, the high court neither granted nor rejected the administration’s plea to immediately remove him. Instead, the court held the request in abeyance, noting that the order expires in just a few days.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson has scheduled a Wednesday hearing over whether to extend her order keeping Mr. Dellinger in his post. The justices could return to the case depending on what she decides.

Conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito sided with the administration, doubting whether courts have the authority to restore to office someone the president has fired. Acknowledging that some presidentially appointed officials have contested their removal, Justice Gorsuch wrote that “those officials have generally sought remedies like backpay, not injunctive relief like reinstatement.”

Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have rejected the administration’s request.

The conservative-dominated court has previously taken a robust view of presidential power, including in last year’s decision that gave presidents immunity from prosecution for actions they take in office.

The Justice Department employed sweeping language in urging the court to allow the termination of the head of an obscure federal agency with limited power. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in court papers that the lower court had crossed “a constitutional red line” by blocking Mr. Dellinger’s firing and stopping President Trump “from shaping the agenda of an executive-branch agency in the new administration’s critical first days.”

The Office of Special Counsel is responsible for guarding the federal workforce from illegal personnel actions, such as retaliation for whistleblowing. Its leader “may be removed by the president only for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

Mr. Dellinger was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term in 2024.

“I am glad to be able to continue my work as an independent government watchdog and whistleblower advocate,” Mr. Dellinger said in a statement. “I am grateful to the judges and justices who have concluded that I should be allowed to remain on the job while the courts decide whether my office can retain a measure of independence from direct partisan and political control.”

Ms. Harris said the court should use this case to lay down a marker and check federal judges who “in the last few weeks alone have halted dozens of presidential actions (or even perceived actions)” that encroached on Mr. Trump’s presidential powers.

The court already has pared back a 1935 ruling, known as Humphrey’s Executor, that protected presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed leaders of independent agencies from arbitrary firings.

Conservative justices have called into question limits on the president’s ability to remove the agency heads. In 2020, for instance, the court by a 5-4 vote upheld Mr. Trump’s first-term firing of the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court that “the President’s removal power is the rule, not the exception.” But in that same opinion, Justice Roberts drew distinctions that suggested the court could take a different view of efforts to remove the whistleblower watchdog. “In any event, the OSC exercises only limited jurisdiction to enforce certain rules governing Federal Government employers and employees. It does not bind private parties at all or wield regulatory authority comparable to the CFPB,” he wrote.

The new administration already has indicated it would seek to entirely overturn the Humphrey’s Executor decision, which held that President Franklin D. Roosevelt could not arbitrarily fire a Federal Trade Commission member. Mr. Trump has taken aim at people who are on the multimember boards that run an alphabet soup of federal agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit System Review Board.

Like Mr. Dellinger, they were confirmed to specific terms in office and the federal laws under which the agencies operate protect them from arbitrary firings. Lower courts have so far blocked some of those firings.

This story was reported by the Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Give us your feedback

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

 

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Supreme Court halts Trump attempt to fire head of whistleblower office – for now
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2025/0223/Supreme-Court-halts-Trump-attempt-to-fire-head-of-whistleblower-office-for-now
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe