According to a Litigation Tracker, there are 96 “legal challenges to Trump administration actions.” Earlier today the Supreme Court, in a move that “stunned” Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, SCOTUS Refused To Halt District Court Order That Gov’t Pay Two Billion To Foreign Aid Contractors.
In another case we have been following, the Supreme Court, over the dissent of Justices Gorsuch and Alito, Punted On Whether District Court Can Prevent Trump From Firing Official. The issue in that case was a District Court Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting the Trump administration from removing Hampton Dellinger from his position as Special Counsel for the Office of Special Counsel, [This has nothing to do with “Special Counsel” Jack Smith.]
The case reverted back to the District Court, where Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued an Permanent Injunction keeping Dellinger in his position. The Trump administration sought an emergency stay in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals:
The district court issued a permanent injunction countermanding the President’s removal of Hampton Dellinger as the head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), and reinstating Dellinger as sole head of an executive agency. The court assumed that Dellinger “hardly” exercises any executive power at all. Yet, since being reinstated, Dellinger has been prosecuting complaints on behalf of terminated federal employees and seeking stays of their terminations. The Court should immediately stay the district court’s order and put an end to Dellinger’s rogue use of executive authority over the President’s objection.Two prior appeals of orders countermanding Dellinger’s removal—first an “administrative stay,” then a “temporary restraining order”—were dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Now, this Court can indisputably reach the merits. Despite the district court’s characterization of its order as “extremely narrow” (Dkt. 32 at 4, 65), it gravely offends the separation of powers….Plaintiff has identified no prior case in American history where a court has forced the President to retain the sole head of an agency after the President has determined that that person should not be entrusted with executive power. Indeed, it is well established that courts lack equitable power to “restrain an executive officer from making a … removal of a subordinate appointee.” White v. Berry, 171 U.S. 366, 377 (1898). This Court should stay the order and grant an immediate administrative stay
The DC Court of Appeals just issued a stay pending appeal, which means the District Court’s Order has no effect and Dellinger should be out:
Upon consideration of the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal and the opposition thereto; the Rule 28(j) letter and the response thereto; the consent motion to participate as amicus curiae filed by the Separation of Powers Clinic and the lodged amicus brief; the corrected amici brief lodged by the States, which is construed to contain a motion to participate as amici curiae; the motion to participate as amicus curiae filed by Cathy A. Harris and the lodged amicus brief; and the motion to participate as amici curiae filed by the Government Accountability Project, et al., and the lodged amici brief, it isORDERED that the motions for leave to participate as amicus curiae be granted. The Clerk is directed to file the lodged amicus briefs. It isFURTHER ORDERED that the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal be granted, and that the district court’s March 1, 2025 order be stayed pending further order of the court, except to the extent that order vacates the Temporary Restraining Order entered by the district court on February 12, 2025. This order gives effect to the removal of appellee from his position as Special Counsel of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. Appellants have satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending appeal. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009); D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 33 (2024). An opinion will follow in due course. It isFURTHER ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that this case be expedited.
This is a big win for the administration in two ways. First, the officer gone rogue – Dellinger – is removed. Second, this may signal that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals will take seriously the need to rein in runaway District Court rulings.
Has Democrat lawfare peaked?
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY