The head of the Watchdog agency asks the judges to stay out of the firing dispute

Emergency docked

The district court quickly pursues the case, Dellinger told the judges and could decide “in a way that avoid the needs of the intervention of this court”. (Katie Barlow)

The special consultant Hampton Dellinger told the Justice on Tuesday that he should leave the temporary command of a federal judge on the spot to bring him back into his job. The head of the independent agency, which is charged with Whistleblower Protection, said that the Trump government’s intervention on Sunday evening was a merit-free attempt to “declare a five alarm fire on the command”. Everything that the US district judge Amy Berman Jackson fulfills, Dellinger told the judges to maintain the status quo – and enables him to remain in office – “while the district court initiates an extremely accelerated procedure in order to tackle the services of the parties. underlying dispute. “

The Trump administration released Dellinger on February 7th in an e -mail. The special advisor’s office is commissioned to protect the federal assistant and in particular whistleblower before retribution and is considered regardless of the seated president. Dellinger had worked as head of the agency since 2024 when he was appointed President Joe Biden to serve an term of five years.

According to the Federal Law of 1978, Dellinger could only be created by his position because of “inefficiency, neglect of duty or misconduct. In the e -mail from February 7, no these reasons quoted for his shooting.

On February 12, Jackson made a temporary injunction that Dellinger reinstated for 14 days. The US Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the government’s appeal and decided that the Court of Appeal lacked the authority to examine it.

The Trump administration came to the Supreme Court on February 16 and asked the judges to weigh themselves. The incumbent Attorney General Sarah Harris called Jackson’s command an “unprecedented attack on the separation of the powers, the immediate relief”.

On Tuesday afternoon, Dellinger rated the Trump government’s application on Tuesday afternoon, almost a whole day before the deadline of the Supreme John Roberts, which was defined for him, who takes over the emergency calls from the District of Columbia. He claimed that the Trump government asked the judges to create an exception for the President of the generations that temporary entry orders cannot appeal.

Dellinger warned the judges that taking into account the government’s appeal in his case would open the locks for more calling for temporary starting arrangements. He suggested that “a rocket end to this dish, also multiply as emergency disputes with high operations across the country.”

And in any case, Dellinger continued, the government did not deny that it violated a federal law when she released Dellinger for no good reason. “In view of this concession,” he wrote, “it is difficult to understand how the temporary compliance with the statutory scheme of the OSC is” a “crisis for the separation of forces and an emergency that has overruled the limits of the appeal jurisdiction”. Dellinger added: “We are not aware of a case in which this court granted emergency aid (let alone a usually unattractive consolation) so that the government can continue to violate a federal law. “

As a practical matter, Dellinger, the case, moved quickly in the district court, which quickly pursued the case and could decide “in a way that the intervention is avoided (or at least create a proper recording for it). “

Even if the government judges agree that they have the authority to check Jackson’s temporary injunction, Dellinger should leave this order in place. Among other things, he claims that the Trump government ultimately does not win the merits of its claim that the law of the special consultant violates the office of special consulting office against the constitution. Although the Supreme Court in recent years has the President’s authority to remove the heads of other federal authorities and not private individuals or companies.

In addition, Dellinger intended that the congress wanted to give the special consultant’s office a certain degree of independence to ensure that he could effectively protect Whistleblower. “If the officer, who was accused of protecting whistleblower from retaliation, himself was susceptible to retaliation measures and removal for politically charged or uncomfortable cases, the protective purpose of the Whistleblower protection of the OSC could possibly fail,” emphasized Dellinger.

The Trump government will have the opportunity to submit a answer to Dellinger’s opposition. After that, the judges were able to act on their request at any time.