In a significant development that could reshape the balance of presidential powers, the Supreme Court has issued a temporary decision regarding the fate of a key federal whistleblower protection official. The ruling marks the court’s first intervention in the numerous legal challenges surrounding President Donald Trump’s second-term executive actions.
Supreme Court’s temporary ruling on whistleblower protection chief
The nation’s highest court has allowed Hampton Dellinger, who heads the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), to maintain his position until at least February 26, when a lower court’s protective order expires. Rather than making an immediate decision on the administration’s request for removal, the Supreme Court opted for a measured approach, essentially putting the matter on hold until the existing order runs its course.
The decision revealed ideological divisions among the justices. Conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito aligned with the administration’s position, while liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson opposed the administration’s request.
Executive power and agency independence
The Justice Department has taken a strong stance on this issue, with Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris arguing that the lower court had crossed “a constitutional red line” by preventing Dellinger’s dismissal and impeding Trump’s ability to “shape the agenda of an executive-branch agency in the new administration’s critical first days.”
The OSC plays a crucial role in protecting federal employees from illegal personnel actions, particularly regarding whistleblower retaliation. Under current law, its leader can only be removed by the president for specific causes: “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”
Dellinger, who was appointed by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate in 2024, received a five-year term appointment.
Historical context and legal precedent
The case has broader implications for presidential authority over independent agencies. Chief Justice John Roberts previously wrote that “the President’s removal power is the rule, not the exception.” However, he also noted important distinctions regarding the OSC, stating that it “exercises only limited jurisdiction to enforce certain rules governing Federal Government employers and employees. It does not bind private parties at all or wield regulatory authority comparable to the CFPB.”
The Trump administration has indicated its intention to challenge the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor ruling, which established protections for leaders of independent agencies against arbitrary dismissal. This case could potentially impact various federal agency boards, including the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit System Review Board, whose members currently enjoy similar protections against arbitrary removal.
