In a surprising move, the Supreme Court recently decided to keep Hampton Dellinger, the head of an independent agency that looks into whistleblower claims, in his job for a bit longer. This decision came after President Donald Trump tried to fire Dellinger shortly after returning to the White House. The court's ruling means Dellinger will stay in his role until at least mid-February.

The Supreme Court didn't back Trump's emergency appeal. This means the court didn't immediately support Trump's decision to fire Dellinger. The court's decision to pause the case until February 26th leaves many questions unanswered. The fight over Dellinger's job is far from over. The court's decision didn't address the key issues in the case. Four justices, two from each side of the political spectrum, disagreed with the court's decision.

The Supreme Court was asked to decide if a temporary order from a lower court, which paused Dellinger's dismissal, should be blocked. The court didn't give a clear answer to this question. This means the fight over Dellinger's job will likely return to the court soon. If a lower court issues a preliminary injunction, the Department of Justice could appeal that decision back to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's decision to pause the case is likely because they didn't want to set a precedent for handling emergency requests when lower courts issue temporary orders. This way, the court can decide on Dellinger's job status once the lower court's order expires.

Conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito disagreed with the court's decision. They thought the district court made a mistake by not considering the history and law surrounding similar cases. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson also disagreed but didn't explain their reasons.

Dellinger expressed his gratitude for the court's decision, which allows him to continue his work as an independent government watchdog. The case raises bigger questions about Trump's power to fire critics who have protections under federal law. These questions will likely be addressed by the court in the coming weeks.

The Office of Special Counsel, led by Dellinger, handles whistleblower retaliation claims from federal employees. The office was created during the Carter administration and can only be removed from office for specific reasons, like inefficiency or malfeasance. Trump fired Dellinger without citing any of these reasons.

The litigation surrounding Dellinger's job could have broader implications for Trump's control over independent agencies. A group of law professors urged the Supreme Court to protect the Federal Reserve from any decisions made in Dellinger's case. The Federal Reserve has a degree of independence to make decisions without pressure from the White House.

During his first term, Trump repeatedly pressured the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates. Lowering interest rates can boost stock prices and make borrowing cheaper, but it can also fuel inflation. If Trump gets his way, he could remove board members and install replacements who will carry out his wishes.

In Dellinger's case, a federal district court issued a temporary restraining order blocking Trump from enforcing the dismissal. Such orders are generally not appealable, but the Justice Department under Trump appealed anyway, arguing that federal courts had committed an "unprecedented assault on the separation of powers" with the order.

The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that the temporary order was not appealable. The two judges in the majority were appointed by former President Joe Biden, while a third judge, appointed by Trump, disagreed with the decision.

Trump's Plan to Fire Watchdog Hits a Snag

Actions