...
By Sean O'Driscoll
Senior Crime and Courts Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
A judge appointed by former President Barack Obama has voted to allow President Donald Trump to fire a special counsel while an appeal court is considering the case.
Why It Matters
Trump fired special counsel Hampton Dellinger, who then challenged that order in the federal courts. The legal battle over Dellinger's fate comes to the very heart of Trump's mandate to purge the federal government of what he views as excess employees.
Read More
Donald Trump Forced to Reinstate Federal Workers He Fired4 min read
Appeals Court Unanimously Allows Trump to Fire Special Counsel4 min read
Trump Tells Supreme Court It Gave Him ‘Unrestricted Power’ to Fire People3 min read
Newsweek reached out to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Judge Patricia Millett, and the attorney representing Dellinger via email for comment.
What To Know
Former President Joe Biden had appointed Dellinger as a special counsel in charge of handling whistleblower cases within the federal government. The post was designed to be an avenue through which federal employees could report corruption and wrongdoing without fear of retribution.
When Trump returned to the White House in January, he fired Dellinger with a one-sentence email. Dellinger has been fighting his case in the federal courts ever since.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama-era appointee, had temporarily reinstated Dellinger while he pursued his case.
On March 5, the three-person Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals unanimously overruled Berman Jackson, allowing Trump to remove Dellinger while the appeal court considers the legal issues involved in the case.
The D.C. appeals court judges were Karen Henderson, nominated by former President George HW Bush; Patricia Millett, nominated by Obama; and Justin Walker, nominated by Trump during his first term.
Millett is an experienced constitutional lawyer, having argued 32 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court before Obama nominated her to the federal court.
...
The appeal court ruled "that the district court's March 1, 2025, order be stayed pending further order of the court" and that "this order gives effect to the removal of appellee from his position as Special Counsel of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. Appellants [The Trump administration] have satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending appeal."
What People Are Saying
In a footnote to her written order, Judge Amy Berman Jackson compared the Trump administration to a bull in a china shop while castigating the White House lawyers for claiming in her court that reinstating Dellinger would cause too much disruption in the special counsel's office:
"Defendants imply that it would be too disruptive to the business of the agency to have Special Counsel Dellinger resume his work. But any disruption to the work of the agency was occasioned by the White House. It's as if the bull in the china shop looked back over his shoulder and said, 'What a mess!'"
Acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris, in a February 16 Supreme Court appeal of Berman Jackson's ruling: "As this Court observed just last Term, 'Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President's actions on subjects within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority' —including 'the President's unrestricted power of removal with respect to 'executive officers of the United States whom [the President] has appointed.'"
What Happens Next
The Washington, D.C., appeals court has placed the case on an expedited calendar.
It wants the Trump administration's brief on the legal arguments in the case by March 21, then a brief from Dellinger's legal team by April 4, and a reply brief from the Trump administration by April 11.
It has not yet fixed a date for oral arguments.
"The Clerk is directed to calendar this case for oral argument this term on the first appropriate date following the completion of briefing. The parties will be informed later of the date of oral argument," the court stated in its March 5 order.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines