Hampton Dellinger Unemployed--For Now

A three-judge panel of the DC appellate court just put a hold on Judge Amy Berman Jackson's order reinstating Dellinger as head of Office of Special Counsel. But the fight isn't over yet.

Longtime Democratic Party activist and Biden family friend Hampton Dellinger is probably enjoying extended coffee time this morning as he plots his next move against the Trump administration.

A three-judge panel of the DC appellate court late yesterday stayed—put on hold—the March 1 order issued by DC Judge Amy Berman Jackson keeping Dellinger in the influential post for the time being. Jackson found that President Trump did not dismiss Dellinger “for cause,” an element required in the statute, and therefore determined his firing was unlawful.

But three judges—GHWB appointee Karen Henderson, Obama appointee Patricia Millett, and Trump appointee Justin Walker—removed Dellinger on March 5. “This order gives effect to the removal of appellee from his position as Special Counsel of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.” The judges further concluded the Trump administration “satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending appeal.” (Link to order here.)

Trump’s Department of Justice is appealing Jackson’s order to firmly establish the president’s Article II authority to fire political appointees—Dellinger was appointed to a five-year term by Biden in 2023—at will and without a reason. Two recent Supreme Court decisions related to similarly situated political appointees strongly work in Trump’s favor.

The court set an expedited briefing schedule for both parties; oral arguments could take place in late April.

Egregious Abuse of Temporary Power

Dellinger continues to claim the position his holds, or held, has minimal authority. Any action taken by the Office of Special Counsel OSC), he insists, is limited by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which ultimately decides how to handle any federal employee complaints he brings to the board. “The Special Counsel is a unique actor whose extremely limited authorities do not intrude on any presidential prerogative,” his lawyers wrote in a motion opposing the stay.

Those arguments, however, do not align with reality. The MSPB is made up of three Biden appointees; the current chairwoman, Cathy Harris, also was fired by Trump last month but DC District Court Judge Rudy Contreras on Tuesday reinstalled Harris to her position as head of the board. He, like his colleague Judge Jackson, determined Harris’ firing did not meet the statutory language “for cause” language. The Trump DOJ is appealing his decision as well.

And while both matters make their way through the appellate court, and perhaps the Supreme Court, Dellinger and the all Biden-appointee MSPB are indeed “intrud[ing] on presidential prerogative” contrary to what Dellinger claims in court papers. Dellinger successfully reinstated six government employees on probationary status from various federal agencies last month. And on February 28, as his status was under review by the court, Dellinger brazenly asked the MSPB to reinstate nearly 6,000 Department of Agriculture probationary employees fired per the president’s executive order to reduce the federal workforce.

On March 5, hours before the appellate court removed Dellinger from office, the MSPB granted his request. “All other probationary employees whom the agency has terminated since February 13, 2025…shall be placed in the positions that they held prior to the probationary terminations,” the board wrote.

It is unclear if the board is considering any other requests by Dellinger. He warned in one request that he would continue to seek the reinstatement of other probationary workers.

Dellinger’s actions clearly make the case as to why President Trump, or any president, should be able to remove any political appointee at will. How many probationary employees—typically on probation for one year depending on the agency—will no longer be on probationary status by the time this is resolved? Will Dellinger, thanks to Judge Jackson and the Supreme Court, which refused to end this farce last month, succeed in undoing the firing of hundreds of government employees at the expense of American taxpayers? How can the president claw back those firings and the costs involved?

Relief for the president and the taxpayers will come too late even if the DC appellate court reverses Judge Jackson next month. Another example of the crisis of rogue judges protecting the best interests of federal check-suckers and political actors rather than protecting the Constitutional rights of the president and best interest of U.S. taxpayers.