Well, here we go—President Trump is taking his first major legal fight to the Supreme Court in what is shaping up to be a critical showdown over executive authority. And what’s the case about? Not a multi-billion-dollar policy, not a sweeping economic agenda, but the simple act of firing Hampton Dellinger, a Biden-era bureaucrat who somehow thinks he has a right to keep his job even after the American people elected a new president.
Back in early February, Trump did what any president would do—he cleaned house. He fired Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel, along with a number of Biden-era agency inspectors general. Dellinger, however, didn’t get the memo that elections have consequences and promptly sued for reinstatement, claiming that his position was protected by a statute allowing removal only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Predictably, the case landed in the lap of Judge Amy Berman Jackson—one of the many anti-Trump judges infesting the DC Circuit—and she wasted no time ordering Dellinger’s reinstatement.
Jackson didn’t just rule against Trump; she made sure to inject some snide commentary into her ruling, throwing in a footnote mocking the White House’s argument that reinstating Dellinger would cause disruption. According to her, Trump is the real problem, likening him to a “bull in a china shop” who then complains about the mess. Funny—because last time I checked, the actual mess in Washington was created by Biden’s reckless policies, his administration’s lawfare tactics, and an activist judiciary that seems to believe Trump has no presidential authority whatsoever.
Yeah, Hampton Dellinger has got to go. He’s a plant, who is looking to cause harm to the Trump administration.
Rogue D.C. judges get to make personnel decisions for the executive branch now? It’s too much https://t.co/YatLS7EXYS pic.twitter.com/X5tDS2U5y9
— KK Berd 🇺🇸 (@keny_berd) February 12, 2025
Trump’s legal team, knowing full well that the DC Circuit is as hostile as it gets, quickly appealed the ruling. And, as expected, the response from the appeals court was pure partisan hackery. The decision was split along party lines, with Biden’s appointees, Florence Pan and J. Michelle Childs, refusing to grant Trump relief while Trump appointee Greg Katsas dissented. The reasoning? Oh, just the usual bureaucratic nonsense—Pan and Childs claimed that Jackson’s order reinstating Dellinger was temporary (expiring on February 26) and that overturning it now would disrupt the “orderly consideration of cases.” Translation: we’re going to stall this as long as possible and hope Trump gives up.
LAWFARE: An Obama-appointed judge ruled that President Trump must work with Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, a Biden-appointed official, instead of his own chosen legal counsel. Judge Jackson issued an order mandating Dellinger represent the president and barred Trump from… pic.twitter.com/Mh3RlM0u4S
— @amuse (@amuse) February 11, 2025
But Katsas, the only sane judge in the mix, wasn’t having it. He recognized the real issue—this isn’t about Dellinger’s job, it’s about the fundamental powers of the presidency. If courts can step in and dictate to the president whom he can and cannot fire, then we no longer have a functioning executive branch.
Naturally, Trump isn’t backing down. His legal team took the case straight to the Supreme Court, armed with clear precedent that backs up their argument. The Supreme Court has twice ruled in the last five years that restrictions on a president’s ability to remove agency heads violate Article II of the Constitution. It happened in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (2020) and Collins v. Yellen (2021), both of which struck down congressional attempts to limit presidential removal power. Not to mention, Biden himself used this exact precedent in 2021 when he fired the head of the Social Security Administration without cause. Funny how Democrats never seem to care about executive overreach when they’re the ones in charge.
BREAKING: President Trump just filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court asking them to overturn the lower court judge who reinstated Hampton Dellinger as head of the Office of Special Counsel.
“Until now, as far as we are aware, no court in American history has wielded an… pic.twitter.com/6dkZ8d4WFC
— George (@BehizyTweets) February 16, 2025
The Trump legal team’s argument is simple: the Constitution gives the president the authority to fire executive branch officials at will. Congress cannot carve out special protections for bureaucrats just because they like the guy in the job. And even if Dellinger somehow believes he was wrongfully terminated, the courts do not have the power to reinstate him—at most, he can sue for lost wages.
They even went back to the First Congress to drive the point home. Back in the early days of the Republic, lawmakers debated whether the president should need Senate approval to fire executive officials. The overwhelming consensus? No way. They knew that allowing Congress—or worse, the courts—to interfere with executive appointments would create chaos.
The bottom line here is pretty clear: this case has a very strong chance of success at the Supreme Court. It’s almost as if Trump’s legal team was expecting the district and appeals courts to rule against them just to get this issue before the highest court in the land. And why not? The Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of presidential removal authority multiple times, and there’s no reason to think they’ll suddenly change course now.
This is about more than just Hampton Dellinger—it’s about stopping unelected bureaucrats and activist judges from usurping executive power. If lower courts can effectively veto a president’s decision to remove officials, then the entire constitutional balance collapses. That’s exactly why this case matters, and that’s exactly why Trump is fighting it. Because if we allow the deep state to keep calling the shots, then it won’t just be Trump who loses—it will be the presidency itself.
