Staff Reports
A federal judge has tossed a curveball into the ongoing saga of President Donald Trump’s national security cleanup by ruling that his decision to fire the head honcho of the special counsel investigation wasn’t exactly by the book. D.C. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, named by President Obama, has deemed the termination of Hampton Dellinger—who was handpicked by President Biden for the Office of Special Counsel—as “unlawful.” With legal challenges sprouting like weeds after a rainstorm, this ruling marks a new chapter in the drama that seems to have no end.
In a masterpiece of judicial reasoning, Judge Jackson has asserted that the Special Counsel’s role is to shine a light on all the shady backroom dealings in the federal workforce, all while making sure that brave whistleblowers voicing concerns about government shenanigans aren’t shown the door or worse. Talk about irony; it would be rich if the Special Counsel could be booted out at the whims of political factions while claiming to root out corruption. The interpretation of the law made by Jackson portrays a judiciary ready to flex its muscles, reminiscent of a superhero movie where the powers that be take center stage with capes flapping in the wind.
Federal Judge Rules Against Trump's Firing of Head of Special Counsel https://t.co/LJPiFRZhzN
— Observing Time (@TimeObserving) March 2, 2025
The ruling didn’t stop at merely declaring the firing unlawful. Jackson laid it down hard, reminding the defendants—including prominent figures in the Trump Administration like Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russ Vought—that they must play nice with Dellinger and let him fulfill his duties without interference. She painted a stark picture, putting her foot down and stating that they must treat Dellinger as if he’s still the man in charge until competent authority formally tells him otherwise. One can only imagine the eye rolls from the Trump camp upon reading this.
In its classic understatement, the Trump administration has swung back with an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which decided not to overturn the ruling in a split decision. It’s a head-scratching moment that brings a mix of disbelief and amusement; the very notion that judges who are unelected are dictating terms to an elected president is a sitcom-worthy setup. One can’t help but wonder if political theater should get its own Emmy category at this point.
Who can forget that infamous email from Trump announcing Dellinger’s dismissal? It was a classic governmental shake-up move, part of a broader strategy to trim down the bloated federal workforce. Dellinger responded in kind with a lawsuit that suggests he somehow deserved a more ceremonious exit. Instead, it might feel like he was just tossed overboard during a stormy sea of bureaucratic maneuvering.
For anyone observing this ongoing legal circus, it’s clear that the exchanges of emails and court rulings are just another game of political chess, with both sides making their moves to protect their turf. Keeping score might require a second cup of coffee, but then again, it’s all part of the ongoing struggle to figure out just how much power the White House, Congress, and the federal judiciary can flex before someone decides to bring out the pop corn and throw a party.
