Here’s what Trump had to say.
President Donald Trump has made it clear that the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on presidential power last year should be upheld in his latest appeal, reminding the Court that it granted him near-total immunity over core presidential duties, including the “unrestricted power” to fire federal officials.
In 2024, the Court ruled 6-3 that the president—specifically, Trump—holds absolute immunity when carrying out core presidential responsibilities. This includes broad discretion over the firing of federal employees, even those in senior positions, without interference from Congress or the courts. This ruling firmly established that presidential actions tied to constitutional authority cannot be questioned or overruled by the judicial branch.
Trump’s appeal to the Supreme Court marks the first true test of this executive power since his return to office in January 2025. The case stems from a lower court decision that temporarily blocked Trump’s firing of special counsel Hampton Dellinger, who was appointed by Joe Biden to oversee the protection of federal whistleblowers. On February 7, Trump’s administration moved swiftly, sending Dellinger a brief email firing him.
However, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., stepped in, ordering Dellinger’s reinstatement on February 12, citing the need for a full hearing. The decision was a direct challenge to the president’s authority to remove individuals he deems necessary for his administration’s work.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris, representing the Trump administration, quickly appealed this decision, urging the Supreme Court to enforce its previous ruling. Harris emphasized that blocking Trump from exercising his constitutional power to remove officials would cause significant harm to the Executive Branch and upset the balance of power between the branches of government.
Judge Jackson had claimed that Dellinger’s return would not disrupt operations, yet she ignored the larger implications of undermining presidential authority. Harris, in her appeal, pointed to the high stakes of the case, noting that the Court’s immediate attention and potential intervention were necessary to avoid further constitutional disruption.
As the legal battle continues, the Supreme Court has yet to decide whether it will expedite the case, but given the gravity of the issue, an expedited review seems likely. The Trump administration is steadfast in defending its prerogative to control the executive branch, reinforcing the principle that the president, as head of the executive, should not be constrained by judicial overreach.