Here’s the argument Trump hopes will net first major SCOTUS win in second term
In a groundbreaking move, the Trump administration is taking its first appeal of its second term to the Supreme Court. The administration is arguing that the judiciary is overstepping its bounds by blocking the president from firing certain federal employees, claiming that the courts are attempting to “seize executive power.”
Legal experts believe that the Supreme Court is likely to be sympathetic to this argument, citing a fierce dissent from lower court judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. Katsas’ dissent has been described as a “devastating” critique of the lower court’s decision, and experts believe it lays the groundwork for a potential victory for the Trump administration.
The case at the center of this appeal involves the firing of Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Special Counsel Office. Dellinger was removed from his position by the Trump administration, prompting him to file a lawsuit claiming that his termination was illegal and in violation of longstanding precedent governing the removal of independent agency officials.
The lower court initially issued an administrative stay reinstating Dellinger to his position, a decision upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court then issued a temporary restraining order reinstating Dellinger for 14 days, which the DOJ appealed. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to lift the order, with a 2-1 split along party lines and Katsas dissenting.
In his dissent, Katsas argued that the order impinged on the President’s core powers and represented an unprecedented intrusion into executive authority. The Trump administration echoed these sentiments in its appeal to the Supreme Court, calling the case an “unprecedented assault on the separation of powers.”
Legal experts believe that the Supreme Court will likely side with the Trump administration in this case, particularly given the strong arguments put forth in Katsas’ dissent. The administration’s appeal emphasizes the need to prevent courts from dictating to the President how to exercise his executive authority.
Critics of the lower court’s decision have denounced it as an abuse of judicial power and an example of judicial activism. They urge the Supreme Court to intervene and uphold the President’s authority to remove agency heads at his discretion.
As this case makes its way to the highest court in the land, all eyes will be on the justices to see how they respond to this challenge to executive power. The outcome of this appeal could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between the branches of government.
