Original Date Announced

President Trump acted to remove Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) member Cathy Harris, a Democrat appointed by President Biden. This removal leaves the Board without a quorum. Under the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), the MSPB has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals by fired government employees, including immigration judges (IJs) in the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

President Trump also acted to remove Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger. The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) investigates alleged prohibited personnel practices under the CSRA and reports such well-founded allegations.

Trump 2.0 [ID #2138]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

Complaint - Dellinger v. Bessent

Special Counsel Dellinger filed a complaint seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting his removal. Dellinger argued that his purported removal was ultra vires and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it was not authorized by law, which prohibits removal of the Special Counsel absent good cause. Dellinger v. Bessent, 1:25-cv-00385, (D.D.C.).

**Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.02.11 Complaint - Harris v. Bessent

MSPB member Cathy Harris filed a complaint and request for a TRO, alleging that her purported removal from office was ultra vires and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because 5 U.S.C. § 1202 prohibits her removal except for good cause. Harris v. Bessent, No. 1:25-cv-00412 (D.D.C.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.02.12 Order Granting TRO - Dellinger v. Bessent

Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued an order granting Special Counsel Dellinger's request for a TRO, finding that Dellinger's removal was barred absent good cause by 5 U.S.C. § 1211(a), and that the statute is constitutional under Humphrey's Executor v. United States and Seila Law LLC v. CFPB because the Special Counsel does not exercise "significant executive power." On March 1, 2025, Judge Berman Jackson granted summary judgment in favor of Special Counsel Dellinger on similar grounds. Dellinger v. Bessent, 1:25-cv-00385, (D.D.C.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.02.18 Memorandum Opinion - Harris v. Bessent

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras granted MSPB member Cathy Harris's motion for a TRO preventing her removal, holding that the MSPB is an independent agency run by a multi-member board whose members Congress may restrict the President's power to remove under Humphrey's Executor v. United States. Harris v. Bessent, No. 1:25-cv-00412 (D.D.C.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

Order Staying TRO - Dellinger v. Bessent

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the government's request to stay the TRO preventing President Trump from firing Special Counsel Dellinger. The court held that the Special Counsel exercises significant executive authority such that the statute prohibiting President Trump from removing him violated the separation of powers. Dellinger v. Bessent, 25-5052, (D.C. Cir.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.03.27 Order Dismissing Appeal as Moot - Dellinger v. Bessent

Special Counsel Dellinger voluntarily dismissed his case, no longer seeking to maintain his position as Special Counsel. Dellinger v. Bessent, 25-5052, (D.C. Cir.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

Order Staying TRO - Harris v. Bessent

The D.C. Circuit stayed the district court's TRO prohibiting President Trump from firing MSPB member Cathy Harris. The court did not issue a majority opinion, but Judge Justin Walker issued a concurrence stating that "the MSPB does indeed exercise significant executive power.." Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson indicated she "agreed with many of the general principles" in Judge Walker's opinion. Harris v. Bessent, No. 25-5055 (D.C. Cir.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.06.03 Opinion - NAIJ v. Owen

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in NAIJ v. McHenry, 1:20-cv-00731 (E.D. Va.), which had dismissed the National Association of Immigration Judges' (NAIJ) challenge to a 2021 EOIR policy restricting IJs' public speech. The district court concluded that the CSRA stripped jurisdiction and that NAIJ must instead pursue its challenge before the MSPB.

The Fourth Circuit noted that the CSRA’s adjudicatory scheme was "predicated on the existence of a functioning and independent MSPB," which has "recently been called into question." On remand, the district court should therefore consider whether President Trump's removal of Special Counsel Dellinger and two MSPB members "undermined the functioning of the CSRA’s adjudicatory scheme" such that the court could exercise jurisdiction over NAIJ's claims.

On November 11, 2025, the Fourth Circuit denied the government's petition for rehearing en banc. NAIJ v. Owen, No. 23-2235 (4th Cir.).

**Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.09.22 Denial of Petition for Writ of Certiorari - Harris v. Bessent

The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Harris v. Bessent, leaving in place President Trump's removal of MSPB member Cathy Harris. Harris v. Bessent, No. 25-5055 (D.C. Cir.).

The Court separately granted certiorari in Wilcox v. Trump, No. 25-332, to determine whether 1) its decision in Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935), which upheld statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission should be overruled, and 2) whether federal courts may enjoin a person's removal from public office.

**Link to case here. See litigation note above.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.12.19 Order - Margolin v. NAIJ

The Supreme Court briefly stayed the Fourth Circuit's order in NAIJ v. Owen, 23-2235 (4th Cir.), which vacated a district court decision dismissing NAIJ's petition. On December 19, 2025, the Supreme Court denied the government's request for a stay of the Fourth Circuit's order and found that the government had not demonstrated that it would suffer irreparable harm without a stay. The Court permitted the government to reapply for a stay if the district court begins discovery proceedings before the Supreme Court reaches a decision on the government’s petition for certiorari. Margolin v. NAIJ, No. 25A662 (U.S.).

Note: the name of this case has changed from NAIJ v. McHenry to NAIJ v. Owen to Margolin v. NAIJ as Defendant (the Director of EOIR) has changed.

**Link to case here. See litigation note above.**