In a major legal victory for President Donald Trump, a federal appeals court ruled that the President has full constitutional authority to fire a special counsel, even as a legal challenge from former Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger moves forward.

Dellinger, a Biden-era appointee, was abruptly dismissed in January after President Trump returned to the White House. The termination was carried out via a brief one-sentence email—part of the President’s broader effort to remove unelected bureaucrats he views as obstacles to his administration’s agenda.

Dellinger had previously been appointed by former President Joe Biden to handle whistleblower matters within the federal government—a position critics say was used to protect entrenched insiders rather than promote true accountability.

After being dismissed, Dellinger sued to regain his post, and U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, a liberal judge appointed by Barack Obama, temporarily reinstated him pending appeal. But on March 5, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned her ruling, confirming that President Trump does indeed have the constitutional authority to remove executive branch officials he deems unnecessary.

“Appellants [The Trump administration] have satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending appeal,” the court wrote. “This order gives effect to the removal of appellee from his position as Special Counsel of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.”

The ruling was handed down by a panel comprising Karen Henderson (appointed by George H.W. Bush), Patricia Millett (an Obama appointee), and Justin Walker, whom President Trump appointed during his first term. Despite ideological differences, the three judges reached a unanimous decision in favor of the Trump administration.

This legal victory aligns with what conservatives have long maintained: the Constitution grants the President “unrestricted power of removal” over executive officers he appoints. That principle was reinforced in a Supreme Court filing earlier this year.

“As this Court observed just last Term, ‘Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions on subjects within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority’—including ‘the President’s unrestricted power of removal concerning executive officers of the United States whom [the President] has appointed,’” stated Acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris in a February 16 appeal to the Supreme Court.

Still, Judge Jackson made her disapproval clear. In a footnote to her March 1 order, she criticized the administration’s decision to fire Dellinger and derided White House counsel for arguing that reinstating him would disrupt the agency.

“Defendants imply that it would be too disruptive to the business of the agency to have Special Counsel Dellinger resume his work,” she wrote. “But any disruption to the work of the agency was occasioned by the White House. It’s as if the bull in the china shop looked back over his shoulder and said, ‘What a mess!’”

Despite the theatrics from the bench, the appellate court moved the case up on its docket. It ordered the Trump administration to file its reply brief by March 21, Dellinger’s team to respond by April 4, and a final brief from the administration by April 11.

A date for oral arguments has not yet been set, but the case is scheduled for a hearing later this term.

“The Clerk is directed to calendar this case for oral argument this term on the first appropriate date following the completion of briefing. The parties will be informed later of the date of oral argument,” the court’s order stated.

Republican lawmakers and conservative legal experts have hailed the ruling as a step toward restoring constitutional order in the federal bureaucracy. While the case isn’t over yet, the unanimous ruling underscores what constitutionalists have said all along: the President—not unelected staffers—holds the reins of executive power.

And in President Trump’s second term, that principle is being reasserted with clarity and purpose.