Appeals Court Allows Trump to Re-Fire Reinstated Official

Man in a suit waving against dark background.

President Trump can officially dismiss Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger once again, according to a new ruling from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing an earlier order that had forced the administration to keep the Biden-appointed watchdog in office.

Key Insights

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted District Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s order that blocked Dellinger’s removal, allowing Trump to fire him while legal battles continue.
Dellinger, appointed by Biden for a five-year term, received a termination notice from the White House on February 7 without specific justification.
The Trump administration argues that legal protections limiting when special counsels can be fired are unconstitutional.
Prior to his firing, Dellinger had secured the temporary reinstatement of thousands of probationary federal employees dismissed by the Trump administration.
The case will be expedited with briefing materials due by April 11, and is expected to eventually reach the Supreme Court.

Appeals Court Sides with Trump Administration

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has temporarily vacated Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s decision that blocked the Trump administration from removing Hampton Dellinger as Special Counsel. This significant ruling allows President Trump to dismiss the Biden-appointed watchdog while the legal case progresses through the courts. The three-judge panel’s decision marks a reversal of fortune for Dellinger, who had briefly returned to his position following Judge Jackson’s initial ruling.

The case centers on the Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal agency that investigates whistleblower complaints and protects federal employees from prohibited personnel practices. Dellinger was confirmed by the Senate in 2024 for a five-year term but received a termination notice from the White House on February 7. The appeals court has now set an expedited timeline for the case, with briefing materials due by April 11, and has explicitly barred Dellinger from serving as special counsel during this interim period.

Supreme Court Suspends Dismissal of Hampton Dellinger Appointed by Biden Administration, Will Remain in Position Until February 26

February 22: The U.S. Supreme Court has halted an attempt by the Trump administration to remove Hampton Dellinger, who was appointed by former… pic.twitter.com/r9iCstaXUC

— CSB News USA (@csbnewsus) February 22, 2025

Constitutional Showdown Over Executive Power

At the heart of this case is a fundamental constitutional question about presidential authority versus statutory protections for certain federal officials. Dellinger sued the Trump administration after being fired, citing a federal statute that states special counsels can only be removed “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Judge Jackson initially agreed with this interpretation, temporarily reinstating Dellinger while his case proceeded through the courts.

The Trump administration contends that these statutory limitations on the president’s removal power unconstitutionally restrict executive authority. This argument mirrors the reasoning in a recent Supreme Court case that allowed Trump to fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Legal experts believe this case will likely follow a similar trajectory to the Supreme Court, where the justices will ultimately decide whether the president’s constitutional authority to remove executive branch officials overrides the statutory protections Congress established for the Special Counsel position.

Implications for Federal Workforce Protections

Before his removal, Dellinger had become a significant figure in a larger battle over the status of federal employees under the Trump administration. He had previously secured a ruling that would reinstate over 5,000 employees fired by the Trump administration at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Dellinger had also publicly urged federal agencies to reverse what he considered unlawful terminations of probationary employees, putting him at odds with the administration’s personnel policies.

“Calling on all federal agencies to voluntarily and immediately rescind any unlawful terminations of probationary employees,” Dellinger said.

Dellinger’s legal team argues that allowing presidents to fire special counsels without cause could seriously undermine the office’s ability to protect whistleblowers and federal workers from political retaliation. The Office of Special Counsel was specifically designed to operate independently to investigate actions like whistleblower retaliation. With Dellinger now barred from serving pending the outcome of the case, questions remain about the office’s ability to fulfill its watchdog role effectively during this period of leadership uncertainty.

What Happens Next

The case now moves into an expedited review process, with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals set to hear arguments soon. Legal observers note that Cathy Harris, Chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board, has been allowed to join the proceedings as amicus, adding another official voice to the deliberations. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has reportedly held a motion to vacate Judge Jackson’s temporary restraining order “in abeyance” while considering the underlying legal arguments.

While the appeals court decides the merits of the case, Dellinger and his legal team are expected to appeal directly to the Supreme Court for emergency relief. This case represents more than just one official’s job status—it potentially redefines the balance of power between Congress and the president regarding the removal of officials in independent agencies. For federal employees who rely on the Office of Special Counsel for protection from prohibited personnel practices, the outcome will determine the strength of their workplace safeguards in the face of changing political administrations.