• Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Money Rise Today – Investing and Stock News
  • Investing
  • Stock
Editor's Pick

JONATHAN TURLEY: Judge’s Special Counsel ruling may be the setback Trump admin was looking for

by March 2, 2025
written by March 2, 2025
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Late Saturday, Washington D.C. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that President Donald Trump violated federal law in firing Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel. Jackson’s decision is forceful, well-written, and arguably wrong under existing precedent. Indeed, it may have just set up an appeal that both presidents and professors have long waited for to reinforce presidential powers.

Appointed by President Joe Biden, and the son of the respected liberal scholar and Clinton acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, Hampton Dellinger was confirmed by the Senate for a five-year term beginning in 2024. He sued after receiving an email with a perfunctory termination notice shortly after Trump’s inauguration. The various inspector generals were also terminated and, at the time, some of us raised concerns over compliance with underlying federal statutes. The issue was not likely the outcome, but the process for such removals. However, while many objected to the helter-skelter approach to such terminations, there may be a method to this madness. Indeed, this ruling may be precisely what the Trump administration is seeking as the foundation for a major new constitutional challenge.

Dellinger’s claim is based in large part on the Civil Service Reform Act, which provides that the Special Counsel ‘may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.’ 5 U.S.C. 1211(b). The notice gave none of these grounds for the termination even though ‘inefficiency’ and ‘neglect’ are a fairly ambiguous and malleable rationale.

Judge Jackson held that the firing clearly violated the controlling statute and that the Act itself was constitutional. She emphasized that, while there are grounds for presidents to claim the power for at-will terminations, those cases have tended to be offices that carry out executive functions. Jackson described the Special Counsel as an essentially harmless office vis-à-vis executive authority.

‘Special Counsel acts as an ombudsman, a clearinghouse for complaints and allegations, and after looking into them, he can encourage the parties to resolve the matter among themselves,’ she wrote. ‘But if that fails, he must direct them elsewhere.’

She noted that earlier cases supporting the executive power to fire executive officials involved ‘restrictions on the President’s ability to remove an official who wields significant executive authority. The Special Counsel simply does not.’

Judge Jackson has a good-faith reliance on her narrow reading of existing precedent. However, it is far from conclusive and brushes over some striking conflicts with prior rulings of the Supreme Court. Jackson insisted that a contrary ruling would undermine the very point of the special counsel office, which she identified as its independence. However, that is the very point that has irked both Democratic and Republican presidents for years.

In 1978, President Jimmy Carter objected on these grounds. The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel explained that, ‘[b]ecause the Special Counsel [would] be performing largely executive functions, the Congress [could] not restrict the President’s power to remove him.’ 2 Op. O.L.C. 120, 121 (1978).

It is unclear whether the current Supreme Court would agree with an exception for minor or de minimus intrusions. Many scholars and judges believe that a president either has Article II authority to fire executive branch officials or he does not.

Notably, there are only four single agency heads who were given tenure protection by Congress: the directors of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the commissioner of Social Security, and the Special Counsel. In 2020, the Court ruled in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB that Congress had violated Article II by granting tenure protection to that sole agency head, writing:

‘The CFPB’s single-Director structure contravene[d] [Article II’s] carefully calibrated system by vesting significant governmental power in the hands of a single individual accountable to no one.’ Id. at 224.

Then, in 2021, in Collins v. Yellen, the Court rejected the same claim as to the director of the FHFA. That opinion came with language that directly opposes Jackson’s rationale. The Court found Seila Law to be ‘all but dispositive’ on the question and expressly rejected the argument that this would change depending upon ‘the nature and breadth of an agency’s authority.’ The Court held that the ‘[c]ourts are not well-suited to weigh the relative importance of the regulatory and enforcement authorities of disparate agencies.’

Given these cases, lower courts clearly got the message – a message amplified by President Joe Biden, who appointed Dellinger. On the third ‘independent’ position, the commissioner of Social Security, Biden’s Office of Legal Counsel declared that ‘the best reading of Collins and Seila Law‘ is that ‘the President need not heed the Commissioner’s statutory tenure protection.’ Two circuits (the Ninth and Eleventh) have ruled consistently with that interpretation in favor of executive authority to remove such officers.

Ultimately, Dellinger can be removed even if this decision stands. The Trump Administration could have easily cited a basis like inefficiency or neglect. The question is why it decided not to do so. Clearly, it could just be a chainsaw approach to cutting positions. However, it may also reflect a desire for some in the administration to challenge lingering case law limiting executive powers. In other words, they seem to be spoiling for a fight.

The reason may be Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), which established the right of Congress to create independent agencies. It found that Congress could, without violating Article II powers, provide tenure protection to ‘a multimember body of experts, balanced along partisan lines, that performed legislative and judicial functions and was said not to exercise any executive power.’ The Court in cases like Seila Law cited that precedent for one of the exceptions to executive power. It also cited an exception for giving tenure protection to ‘certain inferior officers with narrowly defined duties,’ under Morrison v. Olson (1988). Jackson cited both cases and those exceptions in shoehorning the Special Counsel into a narrow band of quasi-executive positions.

What may be overlooked in the filings of the administration before the Supreme Court in the Dellinger case was this line in a footnote: ‘Humphrey’s Executor appears to have misapprehended the powers of ‘the New Deal-era [Federal Trade Commission]’ and misclassified those powers as primarily legislative and judicial.’ It went on to suggest that the case is not only wrongly decided but that the Justice Department ‘intends to urge this Court to overrule that decision.’

Described by the Court as ‘the outer-most constitutional limits of permissible congressional restrictions on the President’s removal power,’ the Trump Administration appears set to try to redraw that constitutional map.

That is why Jackson’s opinion may not only be expected but welcomed by the Trump administration. It is hunting for bigger game than Dellinger and Judge Jackson just gave it a clear shot for the Supreme Court.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

previous post
Trump isn’t the first US commander in chief to lose patience with Zelenskyy: resurfaced 2022 report
next post
DNI Gabbard sounds off on Europe’s ‘divergence’ from U.S. values after tense Trump-Zelenskyy meeting

related articles

Trump warns of ‘serious consequences’ if Elon Musk...

June 7, 2025

Musk jokes about reconsidering stance on Big Beautiful...

June 7, 2025

Musk deletes explosive posts about Trump and Epstein...

June 7, 2025

House witness flips script on Dem who ambushed...

June 7, 2025

Trump’s conservative allies warn Congress faces critical ‘test’...

June 7, 2025

Call with China’s Xi, and Trump-Musk exchange fueled...

June 7, 2025

TIMELINE: Inside the evolving relationship between Trump and...

June 7, 2025

Deadly drone wars are already here and the...

June 7, 2025

FLASHBACK: Musk accused Trump, GOP leaders of not...

June 7, 2025

‘Right down the line’: Medicaid reform in ‘big,...

June 7, 2025
Enter Your Information Below To Receive Free Trading Ideas, Latest News, And Articles.


Your information is secure and your privacy is protected. By opting in you agree to receive emails from us. Remember that you can opt-out any time, we hate spam too!

Latest News

  • Baird begins coverage of Monday.com with $250 target and neutral rating: Is it worth investing??

    July 23, 2024
  • Planned Parenthood appears to scrub Instagram as fears of DOGE cuts loom

    February 15, 2025
  • What Trump’s narrow edge over Biden could mean for campaign after president ends re-election bid

    July 21, 2024
  • Scoop: Key conservative caucus draws red line on House budget plan

    January 30, 2025
  • VP finalist Marco Rubio arrives at RNC with praise for Trump following selection of JD Vance as running mate

    July 17, 2024

Popular Posts

  • 1

    Secret Service admits leaning on ‘state and local partners’ after claim it ignored Trump team’s past requests

    July 21, 2024
  • 2

    Elon and Vivek should tackle US funding for this boondoogle organization and score a multimillion dollar win

    December 4, 2024
  • 3

    Forex Profit Calculator: Maximize Your Trading Potential

    July 10, 2024
  • 4

    Five more House Democrats call on Biden to drop out, third US senator

    July 19, 2024
  • 5

    Biden calls to ‘lower the temperature’ then bashes Trump in NAACP speech

    July 17, 2024

Categories

  • Economy (829)
  • Editor's Pick (4,862)
  • Investing (624)
  • Stock (791)

Latest Posts

  • Planned Parenthood appears to scrub Instagram as fears of DOGE cuts loom

    February 15, 2025
  • ‘Access granted’: Biden’s free vacation at friend’s California mansion draws ire of critics

    August 23, 2024
  • 1 in 3 Democrats believe Trump faked assassination attempt. I talked to one

    July 21, 2024

Recent Posts

  • Trump expected to ‘soon’ appoint a Ukrainian peace envoy after promises of negotiating end to war with Russia

    November 13, 2024
  • America under Kamala Harris would be unsafe and unaffordable for women

    August 9, 2024
  • FBI Director Christopher Wray announces resignation

    December 11, 2024

Editor’s Pick

  • Ex-Obama official predicts Harris will seek new Iran nuclear deal: ‘Has to be the goal’

    August 27, 2024
  • House Republicans continue Fani Willis investigation, requesting documents from DA employees

    February 8, 2025
  • Fox News Poll: Obama, RFK Jr., and Taylor Swift more popular than Harris, Trump

    October 17, 2024
  • About us
  • Contacts
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions

Disclaimer: moneyrisetoday.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

Copyright © 2025 moneyrisetoday.com | All Rights Reserved

Money Rise Today – Investing and Stock News
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Money Rise Today – Investing and Stock News
  • Investing
  • Stock