Skip to content

Bessent v. Dellinger

Emergency application to vacate order is denied as moot.

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
24a790 D.C. Cir. N/A N/A N/A N/A OT 2024

Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should vacate the temporary restraining order issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia restoring Hampton Dellinger to office as head of the Office of Special Counsel from which the president had removed him.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
02/16/2024Application (24A790) to vacate the order issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, submitted to The Chief Justice.
02/18/2025Response to application (24A790) requested by The Chief Justice, due by 2pm (EST) on February 19, 2025.
02/18/2025Response to application from respondent Hampton Dellinger filed.
02/18/2025Amicus brief of Law Professors submitted.
02/18/2025Amicus brief of Former Public Officials and Legal Scholars submitted.
02/18/2025Amicus brief of New Civil Liberties Alliance submitted.
02/19/2025Reply of applicant Scott Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury, et al. filed.
02/19/2025Amicus brief of State of Florida and 19 other States submitted.
02/21/2025Application (24A790) referred to the Court.
02/21/2025This matter concerns the President’s action to remove Hampton Dellinger from his position as Special Counsel for the Office of Special Counsel. Dellinger challenged his without-cause removal in the District Court for the District of Columbia. See 5 U. S. C. §1211(b). On February 12, 2025, the District Court entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) providing that Dellinger should remain in office until the court ruled on his motion for a preliminary injunction. The District Court has scheduled a hearing on that motion for February 26, the day that the TRO expires. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 65(b)(2). Pending before this Court is the Government’s application to vacate the TRO. Dellinger has filed a Response in Opposition. The Government then filed a reply. The question is thus fully briefed before this Court. Although it acknowledges that this Court typically does not have appellate jurisdiction over TROs, the Government urges us to construe the TRO as a preliminary injunction or to exercise jurisdiction under the All Writs Act in light of the core executive power assertedly restrained. Application 31–32; see 28 U. S. C. §1292(a)(1). In his opposition, Dellinger repeatedly notes that the TRO will “expire by its terms [in] eight [now five] days,” Response in Opposition 1, that it “lasts only for a very short duration,” id., at 15, and that it “is set to expire on February 26,” id., at 39. In light of the foregoing, the application to vacate the order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is held in abeyance until February 26, when the TRO is set to expire. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson would deny the application. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, dissents. (Detached Opinion)
02/26/2025Letter of applicants Scott Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury, et al. filed.
02/27/2025Response to Acting Solicitor General's Letter of Hampton Dellinger submitted.
03/06/2025Application (24A790) to vacate the order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is denied as moot.