Supreme Court ‘nonruling’ risks spiraling clash between Trump and judges: analyst

A Supreme Court decision on the first case to reach it concerning federal firings pushed through by Trump’s administration smacks of a “compromise,” an analyst wrote Saturday.

And it threatens to worsen clashes between the president’s administration and the courts.

The Washington Post’s Jason Willick was writing about the case of Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel who was fired two weeks ago as Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency made massive cuts on spending.

Dellinger sued, claiming he can legally only be fired for cause. A judge in D.C. blocked his removal temporarily, and an appeals court argued that decision couldn’t be appealed because it was only temporary.

On Friday, the Supreme Court was asked to end the block by Trump’s lawyers who claimed it illegally intrudes on the president’s power to remove officials.

But Dellinger’s lawyers warned the Supreme Court that if it got involved, it would open up a deluge of cases of fired workers that end up at the highest court.

ALSO READ: 'Gotta be kidding': Jim Jordan scrambles as he's confronted over Musk 'double standard'

“The Supreme Court’s response to this politically charged dilemma has all the markings of a compromise brokered by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.,” wrote Willick.

“While two of the court’s most progressive justices — Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — would have upheld the [temporary restraining order], and two of the court’s most conservative justices — Neil M. Gorsuch and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — would have dissolved it, the court as a whole decided simply to … not decide.

“Noting that the TRO won’t be in force for much longer, the remaining justices, including Roberts, concluded tersely that the government’s appeal should be ‘held in abeyance until February 26, when the TRO is set to expire.’’

The ruling left TROs as an option for fired workers, but the justices also did not reject the argument of Trump’s lawyers that the TRO impeded on his power.

“The risk from this nonruling is that executive vs. judicial friction will escalate without firm direction from the Supreme Court,” wrote Willick.

But he added, “When conflict does escalate, the court will have kept its powder dry.”