Washington, D.C. (Reuters) — A judge in a U.S. District Court has declared that the former President Donald Trump’s firing of the head of a federal watchdog agency was unconstitutional, priming the stage for a possible Supreme Court fight over the boundaries of the president’s powers.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson, sitting in Washington, held that permitting Trump to oust Hampton Dellinger, the director of the Office of Special Counsel, would in effect give the president unfettered authority to coerce executive branch officials into obedience. Dellinger, who was tasked with defending whistleblowers, had been allowed to stay in his job awaiting the court’s ruling.
This would be a constitutional license to intimidate officials in the executive branch,” Jackson wrote in her decision.
The Justice Department quickly appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia late Saturday, indicating the administration’s willingness to fight the ruling.
Dellinger, who was sworn in by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term, welcomed the ruling, stressing the importance of job protections for officials in his position. “I am gratified the court has upheld the legal protections that Congress enacted,” he said to Reuters. “My commitment to safeguarding federal employees and whistleblowers remains firm.”
The Trump administration argued that preventing the removal of Dellinger invades the president’s prerogative to appoint and remove members of the executive branch. But Jackson denied this, pointing out that the Special Counsel is tasked with monitoring and responding to unethical or illegal practices impacting federal workers and the protection of whistleblowers from retaliation.
It would be deeply ironic and contrary to the intent of the statute if the Special Counsel himself were deterred by the prospect of arbitrary or politically driven removal,” Jackson wrote in her ruling.
Trump has in the past attempted to limit the independence of federal agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission. The result of this case may have broad implications for presidential control over independent agencies.
Though Jackson underscored that her decision was “very narrow” and did not generally restrict Trump’s executive power, she added that the Office of Special Counsel is particularly designed and unlike any other federal agency.
The Supreme Court previously pushed off issuing a ruling on the issue, and the case possibly can be ruled upon at the highest court of the land. The Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris meanwhile, defended that the persistence of Dellinger has frustrated the goals of the administration. She directly alluded to his use in intervening and preventing six probationary government officials who the administration tried to remove from work.
As the litigation progresses, the decision may redefine the limits of presidential authority over independent watchdogs, further raising the controversy about executive power under federal government.
More USA News