Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Trump admin goes to SCOTUS to fight for right to fire protected agency head
I am under the impression that Chris Geidner is cool with copying more than four paragraphs.
Trump admin goes to SCOTUS to fight for right to fire protected agency head
The head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel cites legal protections against removal. Also: Trump's efforts to control culture. And, for paid subscribers: Closing my tabs.
CHRIS GEIDNER
FEB 16, 2025
On Sunday, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris warned the Supreme Court of “an unprecedented assault on the separation of powers“ that demanded “immediate relief.” … Of course, this is the argument that those challenging the Trump administration’s early actions have been making themselves in court, highlighting the failure of the administration to respect the agencies established by Congress or the funding appropriated by Congress in the administration’s effort to dismantle wide swaths of the federal government — up to and including efforts to shutter entire agencies.
But here, Harris argued that congressional limits on the removal of the head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel are unconstitutional, that the current effort to enforce those limits should fail, and that a district court order keeping Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger in office during litigation “inflicts the gravest of injuries on the Executive Branch and the separation of powers.“
The Office of Special Counsel — not to be confused with special counsels appointed within the Justice Department — is responsible for protecting federal employees’ merit system and protecting whistleblowers. The limits state that the Special Counsel is nominated by the president, subject to Senate confirmation, for a five-year term and can only be removed by the president “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
When Trump fired Dellinger, he sued, and U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued an administrative stay initially keeping Dellinger in office for two days while she considered the request. DOJ appealed that order to the U.S. Curt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which rejected the request on a 3-0 vote. Then, with additional review, Jackson issued a temporary restraining order keeping Dellinger in place while a preliminary injunction request could be considered. While TROs aren’t generally appealable due to the time-limited nature of their effect, DOJ nonetheless went to the D.C. Circuit again. This time, the request was rejected on a 2-1 vote.
The per curiam opinion, on behalf of Judges J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan (both Biden appointees), held that the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. In other words, the majority held that the government needs to wait for a normal appeal of the preliminary injunction, should Dellinger succeed there.
However, Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, dissented, arguing that the district court “usurped a core Article II power of the President” in putting Dellinger back in office. Additionally, as to the substance, he wrote, “Congress cannot constitutionally restrict the President’s power to remove the Special Counsel.”
{snip}
The head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel cites legal protections against removal. Also: Trump's efforts to control culture. And, for paid subscribers: Closing my tabs.
CHRIS GEIDNER
FEB 16, 2025
On Sunday, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris warned the Supreme Court of “an unprecedented assault on the separation of powers“ that demanded “immediate relief.” … Of course, this is the argument that those challenging the Trump administration’s early actions have been making themselves in court, highlighting the failure of the administration to respect the agencies established by Congress or the funding appropriated by Congress in the administration’s effort to dismantle wide swaths of the federal government — up to and including efforts to shutter entire agencies.
But here, Harris argued that congressional limits on the removal of the head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel are unconstitutional, that the current effort to enforce those limits should fail, and that a district court order keeping Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger in office during litigation “inflicts the gravest of injuries on the Executive Branch and the separation of powers.“
The Office of Special Counsel — not to be confused with special counsels appointed within the Justice Department — is responsible for protecting federal employees’ merit system and protecting whistleblowers. The limits state that the Special Counsel is nominated by the president, subject to Senate confirmation, for a five-year term and can only be removed by the president “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
When Trump fired Dellinger, he sued, and U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued an administrative stay initially keeping Dellinger in office for two days while she considered the request. DOJ appealed that order to the U.S. Curt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which rejected the request on a 3-0 vote. Then, with additional review, Jackson issued a temporary restraining order keeping Dellinger in place while a preliminary injunction request could be considered. While TROs aren’t generally appealable due to the time-limited nature of their effect, DOJ nonetheless went to the D.C. Circuit again. This time, the request was rejected on a 2-1 vote.
The per curiam opinion, on behalf of Judges J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan (both Biden appointees), held that the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. In other words, the majority held that the government needs to wait for a normal appeal of the preliminary injunction, should Dellinger succeed there.
However, Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, dissented, arguing that the district court “usurped a core Article II power of the President” in putting Dellinger back in office. Additionally, as to the substance, he wrote, “Congress cannot constitutionally restrict the President’s power to remove the Special Counsel.”
{snip}
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
