Supreme Court Dismisses Trump Administration’s Request on Dellinger Case

The court’s order came after the D.C. Circuit effectively removed Dellinger on Wednesday. (Thomas Hawk via Flickr)

Background of the Case

The Supreme Court took a decisive step on Thursday, dismissing a plea from the Trump administration that sought to overturn a federal judge’s order reinstating Hampton Dellinger as head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). The Court’s one-sentence dismissal labelled the request as moot, indicating that the issue was no longer a live controversy.

Significance of the Office of Special Counsel

The OSC plays a critical role as an independent federal agency dedicated to safeguarding whistleblower rights. Dellinger had already been appointed to this position for a five-year term beginning in 2024.

Timeline of Events

• February 7, 2025: Dellinger received an email terminating his position without a stated reason.
• February 12, 2025: U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a temporary restraining order, reinstating Dellinger until February 26.
• February 26, 2025: Dellinger remained in his role after the Supreme Court declined to block Jackson’s order.
• March 1, 2025: Jackson affirmed that the Trump administration violated the law in dismissing Dellinger and reinstated him as OSC head, prohibiting governmental interference.

Appeals and Final Dismissal

Following Jackson’s order, the Trump administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On March 5, the Circuit court issued a temporary pause on Jackson’s order, effectively sidelining Dellinger’s reinstatement while the appeal was underway.

With the newer ruling in place and Dellinger’s temporary reinstatement no longer valid, the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the administration’s request occurred shortly thereafter, underscoring a significant legal turn in the ongoing matter.

Dellinger’s Response

In a statement dated March 6, Dellinger noted, “My time as Special Counsel … is now over.” He expressed belief that the D.C. Circuit’s ruling was incorrect but acknowledged the uphill battle he faced in the Supreme Court, stating he would respect the court’s decision: “That’s what Americans do.”

Conclusion

The resolution of this case reflects both the independence of the judiciary and the complexities often involved in political and legal maneuvering. As the case history unfolds, it remains to be seen how this will impact the future operations of the Office of Special Counsel.

This article was initially published at Howe on the Court.