We’ve talked about the process of litigation in a civil suit.
A complaint is filed. In the complaint, the plaintiffs state what they are challenging, why they believe the law supports them, what harm they are suffering, and what relief they seek.
The facts in this case are that on Friday, February 7, 2025, Trump “fired” Dellinger. Dellinger was “Special Counsel”. Being a legal eagle, Dellinger filed suit in federal district court to stop Trump from firing him. Before the government could even respond to the filing, the court held a hearing.
The court issued an “administrative stay” on Trump’s action. This is a made up term. A Court can issue injunctions, a TRO is a type of injunction, and they can issue judgments. They can also stay injunctions and judgments. They can’t “stay” things outside the court system.
So “administrative stay” is actually a TRO but using language to hide the fact.
The court’s order required the government to “recognize Dellinger as Special Counsel” and to let him back into the office. It also required the acting Special Counsel to be removed from the position.
That TRO ran through February 13th.
This is exactly right. The Winter factors order the courts to first look at the likelihood of success on the merits. The inferior courts are required to do so. If the district court judge and called this a “TRO” he would have had to use the Winter factors.
By using a made up term for TRO, the judge attempted to avoid the clear instructions of the Supreme Court on how to decide if an injunction should be issued.
To put this in perspective, Winter factors are to court cases what the four rules of gun safety are to gun culture. If somebody doesn’t fallow the four rules, they are at best ignorant, at worse willfully dangerous to themselves and others.
For the court to ignore Winter factors falls into the same category as pointing a loaded pistol at your junk and seeing how fast you can take up the slack in your trigger.
Katsas, the Circuit Judge writing above, says that the Winter factors were not used. The District judge did a shit job. Then went on to say that this case was not ripe to be heard. That Trump needed to wait until a TRO or a preliminary injunction was issued.
This is bogus.
Any time a Constitutional protected right or authority is delayed, irreparable harm has been done. A right delayed is a right denied.
The district judge has gone rogue.
The Trump administration was having none of this. They reached out to the Supreme Court, via their emergency docket, 24A790 to vacate the district court’s order.
So what authority did The People grant the President?
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Article II, § 1, U.S. Constitution.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
— Article II, § 2, U.S. Constitution
He is the boss of the executive branch. There doesn’t seem to be much limiting him. The limits are for Treaties, appointments of Ambassadors, public Ministers and Consuls, Supreme Court justices, and all other Officers of the United States.
Dellinger is an officer of the United States.
The Constitution does not explicitly lay out that the President can fire anybody. On the other hand, it has long been recognized that the authority to hire comes with the authority to fire.
What is the argument of Dellinger as to why SCOTUS should not vacate the order? That it would be granting an exception to the general rule that TRO’s can’t be appealed.
Amazing, the state seems to appeal any TRO that goes against them. But now TRO’s can’t be appealed?
Dellinger has not shown he has been harmed, much less irreparably harmed. It is unlikely that he will succeed on the merits of his case. Yet, he wants to let an inferior court stop the President while the case winds its way through the halls of (in)justice.
Comments
3 responses to “Bassent v. Dellinger, 24A790 (SCOTUS)”
“…it has long been recognized that the authority to hire comes with the authority to fire.”
The huge complicating factor in that is Title 5 USC. That is the part of US legal code that allows the Federal Government to hire civilians, and it also places terms and conditions on how the Government can fire them.
Now, the average Fed and a “special counsel” likely do not have the same level of protections under Title 5. President Trump cannot just walk in and fire a Park Ranger for no reason, but he may have that ability for a “special counsel.”
The facts here indicate he does have that authority in this case because had he violated Title 5 USC, Dellinger would have pointed to chapter and verse of Title 5 that President Trump violated. It would be an open and close case, no need to obfuscate any TRO.
Yes, but laws are subsidiary to the Constitution, and a provision in any law that contradicts the rules of the Constitution is necessarily void. That’s the essence of Marbury v. Madison.
What’s operative with President Trump’s 2nd term is that he came in to office ready to exercise his authority like the bar fight the Progressives want to turn it in to. President Trump has very good legal advisors and will not back down.
The Progressives are recoiling as they did not anticipate President Trump’s shock and awe campaign from about 1 PM on Jan 20. They thought there would be a “honeymoon” period to regroup.
Trump’s much better prepared this time. With better legal advisors as well.