What the Supreme Court Said about Dellinger v. Trump in Seila Law v. CFPB
Last night, Judge Amy Berman Jackson held that President Trump’s removal of Hampton Dellinger as the Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel was unlawful. [Note, this involves a specific office in the federal government, and not “special counsels” like Robert Mueller appointed to investigate alleged executive branch wrongdoing.]
in Dellinger v. Bessent, Judge Jackson rejected the Trump Administration’s argument that the statutory provision barring the removal of the Special Counsel without cause unconstitutionally constrains the President’s authority to remove executive branch officers. She wrote:
The Court finds that the statute is not unconstitutional. And it finds that the elimination of the restrictions on plaintiff’s removal would be fatal to the defining and essential feature of the Office of Special Counsel as it was conceived by Congress and signed into law by the President: its independence. The Court concludes that they must stand.
The Department of Justice has already filed its notice of appeal, and eventual Supreme Court review seems assured.
With that in mind, it is interesting to note what the Supreme Court said about the Office of Special Counsel in Seila Law v CFPB. In concluding that Congress could not prot
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
