On February 12, 2024, Judge
Amy Berman Jackson of the
US District Court for the District of Columbia issued a two-week temporary restraining order allowing Dellinger to maintain his position until his hearing for a preliminary injunction. Among four
amicus briefs filed before the Supreme Court, multiple state governments wrote to support Trump's authority to fire Dellinger. The
New Civil Liberties Alliance similarly argued that the president must have "absolute removal authority." Conversely, a group of former public officials asked the Court to uphold the temporary restraining order, opining that the Supreme Court should decide the case's constitutional questions after the District Court's proceedings. Another brief submitted by financial regulation professors advocated for preserving
Federal Reserve's independence regardless of the Supreme Court's overall holding. In an
unsigned opinion issued on February 21, 2025, the Supreme Court chose to hold the motion to vacate the District Court's temporary restraining order in
abeyance until its expiration, effectively allowing the order to stand. The Supreme Court opined that the imminent end of this temporary restraining order made appellate interference unnecessary. Justices
Sonia Sotomayor and
Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that they would outright deny the application to vacate. Conversely, Justice
Neil Gorsuch wrote a dissent joined by Justice
Samuel Alito. Gorsuch cited
Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc. (1999) and
In re Sawyer (1888) respectively for the propositions that the
equitable remedies of federal courts are limited to those available when the
Judiciary Act of 1789 was passed, and that by 1888 it was "well settled that a court of equity has no jurisdiction over the appointment and removal of public officers." == Further proceedings ==