Did judge’s ruling against Trump actually help?

Donald Trump has been trying to fire one of Joe Biden’s appointments, but the Head of Special Counsel, Hampton Dellinger, has sued to be reinstated.

A lower-level judge has ruled in Dellinger’s favor, but this could actually work out for Trump. According to at least one constitutional expert, the case is surely headed to the Supreme Court, where Trump is likely to win.

You’re Fired

We all knew that Trump would be removing every possible Democrat appointee possible once he took over, and he did not disappoint.

At the top of that list was Hampton Dellinger, the head of Special Counsel.

Dellinger immediately sued, claiming the termination was unlawful. His attorneys argued, “The recent spate of terminations of protected civil service employees under the new presidential administration has created controversies, both about the lawfulness of these actions and about potential retaliation against whistleblowers. The OSC is statutorily tasked with receiving such reports, investigating them and taking appropriate action.

“The president’s unlawful attempt to remove Special Counsel Dellinger from his office directly violates the modest but vital protections that Congress put in place and renders the OSC and the Special Counsel unable to fulfill their statutory mandate.”

Judge Rules Against Trump

Dellinger won the first round of the battle, with D.C. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruling that the firing was unlawful.

Jackson's ruling stated that the court "finds that the elimination of the restrictions on plaintiff’s removal would be fatal to the defining and essential feature of the Office of Special Counsel as it was conceived by Congress and signed into law by the President:  its independence.  The Court concludes that they must stand.

"It would be ironic, to say the least, and inimical to the ends furthered by the statute if the Special Counsel himself could be chilled in his work by fear of arbitrary or partisan removal.”

Needless to say, Trump is appealing the ruling.

Turley Chimes In

My regular readers know that while I do not always agree with him, I hold Jonathan Turley in the highest regard in terms of his constitutional knowledge. And while I don’t always like what he says, I will usually defer to him because he is generally right.

Turley pointed to the fact that there are only four agency heads protected by Congress, one of them being the office the Special Counsel. However, in 2020, the Court had ruled that Congress was in violation of Article II by having granted “tenure protection to that sole agency head," writing, "The CFPB’s single-Director structure contravene[d] [Article II’s] carefully calibrated system by vesting significant governmental power in the hands of a single individual accountable to no one."

The issue was addressed again in 2021, in Collins v. Yellen, where the Court rejected the claim from the FHFA Director. In that ruling, the language used by the Court to put down the challenge is in direct opposition of the language used by Judge Jackson in her ruling.

Turley concluded, “That is why Jackson’s opinion may not only be expected but welcomed by the Trump administration. It is hunting for bigger game than Dellinger and Judge Jackson just gave it a clear shot for the Supreme Court.” This will be a landmark decision for Trump, and my gut tells me that the Court will stand on precedent and confirm that Trump has the power to terminate Dellinger, and anyone else he sees fit.