By Kiera Howard 
Hampton Dellinger walked away from his fight Thursday, abandoning his lawsuit to remain as the federal government’s top whistleblower protector after an appeals court cleared the way for President Trump to fire him.
The 24-day legal battle ended with Dellinger’s withdrawal, leaving the Office of Special Counsel without independent leadership for the first time since Congress created it following Watergate.
Table of Contents
The Termination
Dellinger received his firing notice at 7:22 PM on Friday, February 7, 2025. The email from White House Personnel Director Sergio N. Gor contained one sentence: “On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as Special Counsel of the US Office of Special Counsel is terminated, effective immediately.”
No cause was given. This matters because federal law specifically requires grounds for removing the Special Counsel: inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
Dellinger had served just 11 months of his five-year Senate-confirmed term. President Biden appointed him in 2024, citing his record of defending legal standards in government. Within 72 hours of his firing, Dellinger filed suit in federal court.
Courts Divide on Presidential Power
US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson moved quickly to block the termination. Her February 12 restraining order reinstated Dellinger temporarily. When Trump attempted to install Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins as acting Special Counsel, Jackson blocked that appointment as well.
Jackson’s March 1 ruling ran 67 pages and left no ambiguity. She found Dellinger’s removal “plainly contravenes the statute” and distinguished the Office of Special Counsel from other federal agencies.
She reasoned that the OSC, unlike the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or Federal Housing Finance Agency, “does not wield significant executive power over private parties and primarily performs quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions.” Jackson noted that Dellinger’s role was “unlike any” other in the federal government.
The victory lasted four days. On March 5, a three-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals stayed Jackson’s order without detailed explanation, allowing Trump to remove Dellinger while the case proceeded.
Strategic Withdrawal
Dellinger announced his decision to drop the lawsuit on March 6. His reasoning was pragmatic and forward-looking.
“I think my odds of ultimately prevailing before the Supreme Court are long,” Dellinger explained in an interview with NPR. The appeals panel had included judges appointed by different presidents who reached a unanimous decision.
Beyond his personal case, Dellinger worried about setting harmful precedent. A Supreme Court loss could eliminate independence protections for oversight agencies across government. According to Reuters, Dellinger believed the appeals court “had wrongly erased the independence Congress provided for his post” but chose tactical retreat over potentially catastrophic defeat.
Federal Workers Lose Key Advocate
During his tenure and brief reinstatement, Dellinger had fought mass terminations of federal employees. Hours before the appeals court removed him, he persuaded the Merit Systems Protection Board to issue a 45-day stay on firings at the Agriculture Department.
The board found that terminations of probationary employees likely violated federal regulations. Previously, Dellinger had secured reinstatement for more than 5,000 USDA workers fired without stated cause.
These victories now face uncertain futures. New leadership appointed by the President will decide whether to continue defending terminated workers or reverse course.
Systematic Removal of Oversight
Dellinger joins a expanding list of dismissed officials:
- More than a dozen agency Inspectors General
- National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox
- Two Democratic Federal Trade Commission commissioners
- Heads of multiple regulatory agencies
Each removal advances the same constitutional argument: that the President must have unrestricted control over the executive branch. This “unitary executive theory” challenges decades of precedent allowing Congress to create independent positions within executive agencies.
The Office’s Critical Functions
The Office of Special Counsel performs three essential roles:
First, it investigates prohibited personnel practices, especially retaliation against whistleblowers who report waste, fraud, or abuse.
Second, it enforces the Hatch Act, preventing federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity while on duty.
Third, it protects employment and reemployment rights of military service members under USERRA.
Congress established these protections in 1978, learning from Watergate that executive branch oversight requires independence from political pressure. For nearly 50 years, Special Counsels served fixed terms with removal only for demonstrated cause.
Immediate Consequences
Trump has not announced Dellinger’s permanent replacement. The administration’s initial designation of Doug Collins as acting Special Counsel faced legal complications from court orders.
Other dismissed officials continue pursuing legal challenges. NLRB member Wilcox and several Inspectors General have cases working through the courts. Their outcomes could still reach the Supreme Court and definitively resolve questions about presidential removal power.
Federal employees now face changed circumstances. Whistleblower complaints will be investigated by leadership serving at presidential pleasure rather than with statutory independence. Veterans seeking employment protection enforcement face the same shift.
Government employee unions report increased reluctance among members to report misconduct. Without confidence in independent investigation of retaliation claims, workers weigh personal risk against public benefit.
Constitutional Questions Remain
The fundamental dispute centers on separation of powers. Can Congress create executive branch positions insulated from presidential control? Or does the Constitution’s vesting of executive power in the President prohibit such restrictions?
Judge Jackson’s now-vacated opinion defended congressional authority to structure the executive branch. The appeals court’s reversal signals judicial movement toward expansive presidential power, though without detailed reasoning.
Until the Supreme Court provides definitive answers, agencies operate in legal uncertainty.
Key Questions
Why withdraw rather than appeal to the Supreme Court?
The unanimous appeals court decision from ideologically diverse judges suggested probable defeat. Dellinger also feared creating binding precedent that would eliminate independence for all oversight agencies, not just his own.
Does this mean Trump can fire any protected official?
Statutory protections remain in law, but their constitutional validity faces serious doubt. Single-director agencies appear most vulnerable, while multi-member boards may retain stronger legal defenses.
How does this affect pending whistleblower cases?
The Office continues operations under new leadership. Legal standards for investigating complaints remain unchanged, though independence from political influence has ended.
What options does Congress have?
Legislative solutions face the same constitutional challenges. Restructuring agencies as multi-member boards might provide stronger legal footing, though passing such reforms faces political obstacles.
Is the change permanent?
Absent congressional action or judicial reconsideration, yes. The practical precedent established by Dellinger’s removal will likely govern unless circumstances change significantly.
For continuing coverage of federal oversight and constitutional law developments, visit our investigations archive.
New Era for Federal Oversight
The DC Circuit’s March 27 order dismissing Dellinger’s case and vacating Jackson’s ruling closed this chapter definitively. No legal precedent remains from the district court’s defense of agency independence.
The Office of Special Counsel continues its statutory mission, but under fundamentally altered circumstances. Leadership now serves at presidential will rather than with congressional protection.
For two million federal employees, the calculation about reporting wrongdoing has changed. The office designed as their shield from retaliation now answers to the same executive authority they might need to challenge.
“My fight to stay on the job was not for me,” Dellinger stated in his withdrawal announcement, “but rather for the ideal that OSC should be as Congress intended: an independent watchdog and a safe, trustworthy place for whistleblowers.”
That ideal, after nearly 50 years, has given way to a new reality. When fired watchdog chief Hampton Dellinger ends lawsuit against Trump, he concludes not just a personal legal battle but an era of independent oversight within the executive branch. The structures remain, but their fundamental character has transformed.