Whistleblower Agency Leader Calls on Supreme Court to Overturn Trump Administration’s Termination Decision
Hampton Dellinger, an appointee of Biden, has requested the justices to rule that his dismissal without cause is unlawful.
The head of a whistleblower protection agency, who faces possible termination from the Trump administration, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on February 18 to uphold a lower court decision that prevents his firing.
This significant emergency government application, Bessent v. Dellinger, marks the first appeal from the second Trump administration to the Supreme Court. The applicant, Scott Bessent, is involved in the case in his official capacity as U.S. Treasury Secretary.
The respondent, Hampton Dellinger, disclosed that he received an email on February 7 notifying him of his termination without any explanation. It is common for new administrations to dismiss government officials without providing reasons. President Donald Trump was inaugurated on January 20.
Dellinger contends that, per legal stipulations, he can only be dismissed for specific reasons during his term of appointment.
Related Stories
Judge Jackson noted that the government had failed to substantiate “the President’s hasty, unexplained action, or … the immediate dismissal of the Senate-confirmed Special Counsel while the legal issue is subject to calm and thorough deliberation.”
The majority opinion from the D.C. Circuit indicated that while a temporary restraining order “is traditionally not an appealable order,” the government sought a hearing due to the claim that the order “presents extraordinary harm.”
“The relief sought by the government signifies a significant deviation from established procedures that balance and preserve the rights of litigants, while ensuring the orderly assessment of cases before the district court and this court,” the opinion stated.
Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas expressed dissent, arguing that the president “is immune from injunctions which compel the performance of his official duties, and Article II of the Constitution grants him the authority to remove heads of agencies.”
The government contended it has a “very high” chance of prevailing on the merits, asserting that the Constitution “empowers the President to remove, at will, the single leader of an agency, like the Special Counsel,” as stated in the filing.
Moreover, federal district courts are not vested with the authority “to reinstate principal officers,” according to the application.
The lower court, as the document claims, has “erred in ways that jeopardize the separation of powers” of the U.S. government, which is a constitutional principle that divides the government into three branches to prevent any one branch from accruing excessive power.
In his document, Dellinger argues that “the government has not met its substantial burden of proving that this brief [temporary restraining order] is subject to immediate appeal.”
He asserts that the circuit court’s ruling was accurate, as appellate courts generally only review final judgments of district courts, with “limited exceptions.”
The government’s claim that the temporary restraining order should be considered appealable due to its alleged interference with the president’s constitutional authority is not a principle recognized by the Supreme Court, he contends.
Dellinger urges the Supreme Court to dismiss the government’s application, asserting that granting it “would inundate the courts with numerous such fire-drill [temporary restraining order] appeals, which is particularly unwarranted in this context.”
The Epoch Times reached out for comments to Dellinger’s attorney, Joshua Matz at Hecker Fink in Washington, as well as the DOJ representing Bessent, but did not receive any responses by publication time.
