Emergency application

President's power to fire officials

Scott Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury v. Hampton Dellinger, Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel

Dismissed as moot

No. 24A790Vacatur applicationFiled by the federal governmentPresented to The Chief JusticeFrom United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

What did the Court do?

The Court dismissed the request as moot (no longer a live dispute) on March 6, 2025.

Emergency rulings are temporary and do not decide the underlying case.

Filed February 16, 2025Closed March 6, 202518 days after filing

What's being asked

The federal government asked the Supreme Court to wipe out a district court order temporarily restoring Hampton Dellinger as Special Counsel. It also asked the Court to pause that order while it considered the request. The government argues the president can remove Dellinger at will and says he has no right to reinstatement.

What the Court did

The Court did not give the government emergency help; it denied the application as moot (closed it because the dispute was no longer live). It did not decide whether to wipe out the district court order, and it did not publish how the justices voted.

What it means

Emergency applications seek temporary relief; this action did not decide who wins the dispute over Dellinger's job. No related Supreme Court case is listed, and the Court set no argument. The docket does not say what further proceedings remain in the District of Columbia courts.

Sources

Facts on this page come from the Supreme Court docket, orders, and opinions for No. 24A790. The answers restate that record in plain words; explainer copy is written from the record and the filings only.

Checked October 4, 2026

Docket timeline

FiledFeb 16, 2025
Application (24A790) to vacate the order issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Application (PDF)Appendix (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
Response requestedFeb 18, 2025
Response to application (24A790) requested by The Chief Justice, due by 2pm (EST) on February 19, 2025.
ResponseFeb 18, 2025
Response to application from respondent Hampton Dellinger filed.
Response (PDF)Document 2 (PDF)
Docket entryFeb 18, 2025
Brief amicus curiae of Law Professors filed.
Amicus brief (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
Docket entryFeb 18, 2025
Brief amicus curiae of Former Public Officials and Legal Scholars filed.
Amicus brief (PDF)Document 2 (PDF)
Docket entryFeb 18, 2025
Brief amicus curiae of New Civil Liberties Alliance filed.
Amicus brief (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
ReplyFeb 19, 2025
Reply of applicant Scott Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury, et al. filed.
Reply (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
Docket entryFeb 19, 2025
Brief amicus curiae of Florida, et al. filed.
Amicus brief (PDF)Document 2 (PDF)
Referred to the full CourtFeb 21, 2025
This 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 <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a790_6i79.pdf'>Opinion</a>)
Referred to the full CourtFeb 21, 2025
Application (24A790) referred to the Court.
Referred to the full CourtFeb 21, 2025
This 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.
Document 1 (PDF)
Docket entryFeb 26, 2025
Letter of applicants Scott Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury, et al. filed.
Document 1 (PDF)
ResponseFeb 27, 2025
Response to Acting Solicitor General's Letter filed.
Response (PDF)
OrderMar 6, 2025
Application (24A790) to vacate the order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is denied as moot.
18 days after filing

The case below

Ruling under review: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 25-5028
Filings: The application (PDF)Appendix with the lower-court ruling (PDF)