Hampton Dillinger, a federal official who President Donald Trump tried to fire him earlier this month, appears very likely to lose the lawsuit that challenges the firing… in the end.
But the Trump administration is panicking to make it happen as quickly as possible, and is asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the ongoing battle of lower courts. In making this request, the administration effectively calls on justice to resolve core questions about the constitutional separation of power a few weeks after Dillinger filed the lawsuit.
Therefore, the case is Bessentv. Dellingerthere are many mysteries about whether Trump can fire Dillinger, so it's not worth watching. Again, if the court is forced to force that question, it is very likely that it will control Dellinger. instead, Dellinger The lawsuit is worth watching as an indication of how impatient it is for the GOP-controlled Supreme Court to expand the authority of a Republican president.
Last year, then-President Joe Biden appointed Dillinger as special advisor to the United States. This is the role that is primarily responsible for investigating illegal HR practices against federal employees. By law, Dellinger serves a five-year term and “may be removed by the President only because of inefficiency, neglect of duty or misconduct in his duties.”
Despite this, White House officials wrote Dillinger on February 7th, telling him that he had been fired from his role. Dellinger filed a lawsuit and obtained a court order known as the Temporary Restraint Order (TRO). Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who issued the order, also scheduled a hearing on February 26, to determine whether to issue a more permanent injunction than letting Dillinger take office.
Jackson's TRO is currently in front of the Supreme Court on the “Shadow Docket.” This is a mix of emergency movements and other issues, and calls for legal questions to be governed very quickly. The particular conflict before justice includes two conflicting principles.
On the one hand, the Republican majority in the courts permeates legal theory known as “single executives.” This believes that the president must generally have the authority to fire federal officials. Important powers in accordance with US law. “The current court precedents recognize some exceptions to this theory, but Republican judges often lighten these precedents. And anyway, the Trump administration has a strong argument that these exceptions do not apply to this case.
On the other hand, Tros, which are very temporary and normally expire within two weeks, are usually not eligible to appeal to the High Court. The purpose of these temporary orders is to allow judges to suspend in cases, knowing how the judge should control. The process is short-circuited when Jackson allows the Trump administration to flee to the Supreme Court before he hosts the February 26 hearing.
It also requires judges to decide on important constitutional disputes on a very rushed schedule, increasing the likelihood that the court will make false decisions.
At least in this Supreme Court, Dellinger's case isn't particularly strong.
Usually, the precedent of “unified executives” in courts allows the president to fire the head of a federal agency. As the court said Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Monitoring Committee (2010), the president's power “as a general issue” includes “the authority to exclude those who support him in carrying out his duties.” The court said, “Without such power, the president could not be fully responsible for eliminating his own liability. Money would stop somewhere else.”
The central question before the present justice is whether to respect the rules the Supreme Court governs when permitted to intervene in a case, or ignore those rules in order to benefit Republican presidents. It's about whether or not you do it.
That said, some of the court precedents give exceptions to this general rule. The most notable is Morrison vs. Olson (1988), the courts investigated high-ranking government officials and created “independent lawyers” who could potentially prosecute, and, like Dillinger, “independent lawyers who were protected from being fired by the president. I created a lawyer.
The role of an independent lawyer is supported Morrison It is somewhat similar to Dellinger's role as a special advisor, as both positions were accused of investigating alleged legal violations by people within the government. So there's a good argument below it MorrisonDellinger cannot be fired except for the cause.
but Morrison It has been revised by the Republican legal elite, including many of the Republican justice. Judge Brett Kavanaugh said in 2016 that he wanted him to “put his final nail down,” for example. Morrison'cofin.
Certainly, this court has already taken important steps to bury it. Morrison. in Trump vs. United States (2024) , which Trump, the infamous Republican justice decision, holds a broad immunity from criminal law, and they quoted from Judge Antonin Scalia's dissent. Morrison This must be under the president's full control to argue that “crime investigation and prosecution is typically an enforcement function.”
It's difficult to square it MorrisonCertain prosecutors believe they could be insulated from being fired by the president TrumpThe conclusion is that crime investigation and prosecution must be carried out under the full control of the President.
So there's a good argument in Dellinger Morrison And similar cases of him not legally fired, those cases are on the thinnest ice. If anything, by challenging his firing, Dellinger gives Republican justice the opportunity they have longed for – Morrison.
It is too early for the Supreme Court to act on this case
All this should prevent the Trump administration from suing Jackson's orders. Jackson has already shown that he intends to decide whether to extend the order by the end of next week and whether she can appeal the decision against Trump.
As mentioned above, Tros allows court courts to temporarily suspend in cases until they have time to understand what consequences are required by the law. They usually expire within two weeks of their first publication.
Furthermore, allowing these temporary orders to be appealed, as the Court warned when it refused to review Jackson's TRO, would result in difficult cases being “at a broken pace.” They will force you to make a decision. . That would lead to a fledgling decision by a strong court of appeals or by the Supreme Court.
The Trump administration argues that because of its value, the court should create exceptions to the rules for thross that are sued for cases involving the president. A Trump administration lawyer said, “The lower courts place on the president's core, citing from Judge Gregory Cassas, who opposed an appeals court order that refused to review Jackson's Toro. If you are told [constitutional] Powers and immediate appeal reviews are generally available. ”
However, as the majority of the Court of Appeals pointed out, “No authorities cited by the government or opponents would be suspended when the rules of civil litigation and appeal jurisdiction are included as parties to the suit. I'm not thinking about it.” Essentially, they argued that Trump might be important, but he could wait a few weeks for an appeal review, just like any other litigator.
Ultimately, the core questions before the present justice are whether to respect the rules the Supreme Court governs when permitted to intervene in a case, or to benefit Republican presidents. Whether to ignore the rules.
If a judge decides he cannot wait two weeks before deciding on this case, they will significantly change the balance of power between Trump and the judiciary. Whether or not those actions are legal.
Similarly, if Trump wins his shadow docket demand, it would be a clear indication that the courts will try to shake off the usual legal process to benefit this Republican president.
