The Trump administration has once again approached the Supreme Court in an attempt to gain approval for dismissing the head of a federal agency responsible for protecting whistleblowers. This ongoing legal tussle focuses on the temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, which reinstated Hampton Dellinger as the head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) following his dismissal by the Trump administration without a stated reason.
Initially appointed to the OSC by former President Joe Biden for a five-year term beginning in 2024, Dellinger’s removal has sparked a heated legal battle. According to the [statutory provisions](https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/02/trump-renews-request-for-justices-to-allow-firing-of-osc-head/) governing the OSC, the agency head can only be removed by the president for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” This case is testing those provisions and the executive branch’s power over such appointments.
The administration, represented by Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, maintains that Judge Jackson’s order impinges on executive authority, particularly concerning the president’s prerogative to remove senior officials. In a recent plea, the administration requested the Supreme Court to intervene, especially after Jackson extended her order till March 1, allowing her more time to consider the arguments presented by both parties.
Harris contended that this extension places an undue burden on executive operations, as the OSC has initiated challenges to administrative decisions. The Supreme Court, to this point, has opted not to intervene, allowing Dellinger to remain in place until Jackson’s order expires.
Dellinger’s attorney, Joshua Matz, expressed no opposition to the temporary extension, suggesting that it would soon resolve the issue, rendering the administration’s current request moot. This would, in turn, prompt an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit should Judge Jackson’s ruling prove unfavorable to either party.
Further details on this evolving legal situation can be found in an article by Amy Howe.