Summary
A per curiam order from the D.C. Circuit dismissing an appeal and emergency stay motion regarding a district court's temporary restraining order that prevented the removal of the Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel. The court held that temporary restraining orders are generally not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and declined to create an exception based on alleged extraordinary harm. The court emphasized waiting for the district court's expedited ruling on a preliminary injunction and denied the government's alternative request for a writ of mandamus.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court's temporary restraining order is appealable under 28 U.S.C. §1292(a)(1).
- Whether the government is entitled to mandamus relief to compel the district court to lift the TRO.
Holdings
- The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the TRO is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. §1292(a)(1).
- The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
Key quotations
“Because it would be inconsistent with governing legal standards and ill‑advised to hold that a TRO is appealable based solely on unsubstantiated claims of “extraordinary harm” for fourteen days, we decline to treat the TRO as an appealable injunction.”
Factual background
President Trump removed Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger on Feb. 7, 2025. Dellinger sued, and the district court issued a TRO on Feb. 12, 2025, ordering the President to recognize Dellinger as Special Counsel for fourteen days pending a preliminary‑injunction hearing.
Procedural history
The district court entered an administrative stay and then a TRO reinstating Dellinger as Special Counsel. The government appealed the TRO and sought a stay and mandamus relief. The D.C. Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, dismissed the stay as moot, and denied mandamus.