President Donald Trump and Hampton Dellinger Getty Images/U.S. Office of Special Counsel/Reuters
Former President Donald Trump is back at the Supreme Court, this time fighting for the power to fire the head of a government ethics watchdog. The outcome could change how much control presidents have over independent agencies—and it could impact whistleblower protections across the federal government.
Who is Hampton Dellinger and Why Was He Fired?
At the heart of the case is Hampton Dellinger, appointed by President Joe Biden in 2023 to lead the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). This agency protects federal whistleblowers from retaliation and investigates civil service law violations. To keep it independent, Congress specified that the OSC head could only be fired for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.”
Despite these rules, Dellinger was abruptly fired on February 7 by the White House Presidential Personnel Office without any stated reason. His legal team argues that if the OSC head can be removed without cause, it undermines whistleblower protections, especially in politically sensitive cases.
Why Is Trump Pushing This Fight?
Trump’s appeal isn’t just about Dellinger; it’s about expanding presidential authority. He argues that, as head of the executive branch, he should be able to fire agency leaders at will. This case could also impact other independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, Federal Reserve, and National Labor Relations Board.
Read Also: Trump Administration Tries to Bring Back Sacked Nuclear Weapons Workers
These agencies were designed to make decisions without political interference, but Trump’s team argues that limiting his firing power undermines his executive authority. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued to the Supreme Court, “This court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the president how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will.”
The Bigger Legal Battle
Trump’s appeal is part of a long-standing debate about how much control presidents should have over independent federal agencies. At its core is whether Congress can create agencies that operate without direct political pressure.
This debate traces back to a 1935 Supreme Court decision, Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., which ruled that presidents must have a valid reason to fire heads of certain independent agencies. However, the current conservative-majority Supreme Court has recently questioned this precedent.
In 2020, the court ruled in Seila Law v. CFPB that the president could fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without cause, arguing that such protections violated the separation of powers. However, Chief Justice John Roberts distinguished the OSC from the CFPB, noting that the OSC doesn’t have the same regulatory power over private businesses.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court could decide quickly, as this is an emergency appeal. They might issue a ruling without diving into the larger constitutional debate, focusing instead on procedural issues.
A federal district court had temporarily blocked Trump from enforcing Dellinger’s firing, and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this block. Trump’s team is now challenging that decision. If the Supreme Court agrees with the appeals court, they may not address the broader questions of presidential power and agency independence—yet.
However, if the justices share their opinions, it could hint at how they might rule on similar cases in the future, influencing everything from federal whistleblower protections to the balance of power between the presidency and independent agencies.
What Else Is on the Horizon?
This isn’t the only high-stakes legal fight Trump is involved in. Over 60 lawsuits are pending, challenging everything from executive orders to federal spending freezes. Some cases accuse the administration of privacy violations related to Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, which allegedly gained control of restricted government IT systems.
With so many legal battles brewing, this case could be the first of many that define the limits of presidential power in Trump’s second term.
