By Mena Yousef | March 2, 2025 | 1:23 AM PST
The Scoop
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has ruled that President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), was “unlawful,” issuing a permanent injunction to keep him in place. The decision, handed down by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson on Saturday, March 1, is the latest salvo in a growing tug-of-war between Trump’s administration and activist judges. Trump’s team has already signaled an appeal, potentially setting the stage for a Supreme Court showdown.
- Why it matters: The OSC protects federal whistleblowers—employees who expose waste, fraud, and abuse. Conservatives argue this ruling undermines Trump’s constitutional authority to manage the executive branch, while critics see it as a necessary check on overreach.
- The details: Dellinger, a Biden appointee confirmed by the Senate in 2024 for a five-year term, was sacked by Trump on February 7. Jackson’s ruling hinges on the argument that the OSC head can only be removed for cause, not at the president’s whim. Bloomberg reports the judge warned that unrestricted removal power could “chill” whistleblower protections.
An Alternative Take
This isn’t just about one bureaucrat—it’s about who runs the government. Trump campaigned on draining the swamp, and conservatives see Dellinger as part of an entrenched, left-leaning bureaucracy resisting reform. The president’s Article II powers give him broad authority over executive appointees, a point underscored by the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), where Chief Justice John Roberts affirmed the president’s removal power as “the rule, not the exception.”
- Judicial activism alert: Critics on X are calling Jackson’s ruling a textbook case of judges playing “de facto presidents.” One user fumed, “These judges need to be tried for activism. No one has faith in the judicial system at this point” (Fox News).
- The counterpoint: Trump’s opponents argue Dellinger’s role is too critical to be subject to political whims. NBC News quotes Jackson: “The Special Counsel’s job is to… ensure whistleblowers can disclose fraud, waste, and abuse without reprisals” (NBC News).
What’s Next?
The Trump administration isn’t backing down. A notice of appeal was filed hours after Jackson’s ruling, and the White House is pushing for a fast track to the Supreme Court. Legal eagles predict a redux of the CFPB fight, but with a twist—Roberts’ prior opinion left room for exceptions, and the OSC’s whistleblower mandate might test that line.
- The stakes: If the Supreme Court sides with Trump, it could cement his ability to reshape the federal workforce—a key promise to his base. A loss, though, might embolden unelected bureaucrats and hamstring his agenda.
- Meanwhile: Dellinger’s staying put, crowing about his “gratitude” to the courts for upholding his gig (CNN).
Between the Lines
Conservatives see a pattern: lower courts thwarting Trump at every turn, only for higher courts to reverse them later. The Washington Examiner notes Jackson specified removal must be performance-related, not political—a standard Trump allies call a “made-up hurdle” (Washington Examiner). Posts on X echo that sentiment, with one user predicting a swift overturn: “The Attorney General appoints them and may equally remove them” (X Post Sentiment).
The Bottom Line
This ruling smells like another delay tactic from a judiciary skeptical of Trump’s mandate. Conservatives argue it’s not about whistleblowers—it’s about power. Expect this to climb the legal ladder fast, with Trump’s team betting on a Supreme Court that’s historically leaned his way on executive authority. Stay tuned.