A recent US federal ruling has declared President Donald Trump’s dismissal of Hampton Dellinger from the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) unconstitutional. The OSC, which plays a crucial role in safeguarding the merit system of the federal civil service, found its leader removed without adherence to set legal stipulations.
The judge referenced 5 U.S.C. § 1211(b), which stipulates the specific conditions under which the Special Counsel may be dismissed. According to the statute, removal is permissible only on grounds of inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. However, Dellinger’s termination was communicated without any such justified reasoning, thereby lacking the necessary legal foundation.
In defense, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) posited that the five-year term and the set termination conditions of the Special Counsel are unconstitutional. They contended that a President should wield unrestricted authority over staffing decisions in order to maintain control over his executive responsibilities. The DOJ cited previous judiciary decisions that supported a president’s right to discharge top government officials, drawing parallels to entities like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
The federal judge, however, distinguished the OSC’s role from those executive agencies mentioned in prior precedents. In the judge’s view, the OSC’s function is to implement congressional directives rather than independently execute executive agendas. As a result, the judge issued a permanent injunction allowing Dellinger to retain his position.
This ruling arrives amidst broader discussions about the “unitary executive” theory, which contends that Congressional constraints on presidential powers are unconstitutional. This theory is a foundational element of Project 2025, a comprehensive agenda engineered by Conservative intellectuals.