President Donald Trump is heading to the Supreme Court for the first time in his second term, using an emergency appeal to call on the justices to let him fire the head of a government ethics watchdog agency.

The case, Bessent v. Dellinger, could eventually help clarify whether Congress may create independent agencies that are protected from the whims of the White House, or whether presidents can fire anyone seen as a potential critic.

It arrives at a moment when Trump is attempting to consolidate power within the federal government, summarily dismissing federal officials who might challenge him and attempting to freeze federal funding that Congress has required to be spent.

Here’s a look at the case and why it matters:

Who is Hampton Dellinger?

At the center of the dispute is Hampton Dellinger, who President Joe Biden named in 2023 to lead the Office of Special Counsel for a five-year term. He was confirmed by the Senate early last year.

The Office of Special Counsel – which is unrelated to special counsels like Jack Smith or Robert Mueller who are appointed to oversee politically sensitive Justice Department investigations – handles allegations of whistleblower retaliation and is an independent agency. Created during the Carter administration, Congress made clear the special counsel could be removed “by the president only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

The director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office fired Dellinger on February 7 in a brief email. The email cited none of those for-cause requirements that Congress required.

“Rather than hamper the president’s substantive regulatory agenda, the OSC’s independence protects and assures whistleblowers,” Dellinger’s attorney said in a recent filing. “If the official charged with protecting whistleblowers from retaliation was himself utterly vulnerable to retaliation and removal for taking on politically charged or inconvenient cases, then the OSC’s whistleblower protection purpose might fail when it is most needed.”

Why is Trump picking this fight?

Dellinger’s case could have implications beyond just his office because Trump has fired other officials at independent agencies that have similar legal protections, including the former chair of the National Labor Relations Board and a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board. And many other independent agencies could be affected by the high court’s decisions, from the Federal Trade Commission to the Federal Reserve.

Congress granted those boards independence so they could make decisions one step removed from the politics of the moment. During his first term, for instance, Trump repeatedly leaned on the Federal Reserve to set lower rates. The board largely ignored him. A lower rate can bump stock prices and make it cheaper for people to borrow money, often giving a boost to a president’s favorability. But lowering interest rates can also fuel higher inflation.

The Office of Special Counsel investigates and prosecutes allegations of abuses of civil service law and serves as an independent entity where federal employees can blow a whistle on wrongdoing without facing reprisal from the political leaders of their agencies. The Merit Systems Protection Board can adjudicate those cases if an employee and government agencies cannot resolve a dispute on their own.

While obscure outside the federal government, both boards could play a critical role in pumping the brakes on Trump’s efforts to massively reduce the size of the federal government.

Trump’s supporters note he ran in part on shaking up – and cutting – the federal government. As the head of the executive branch, he has argued, he should be permitted to fire officials in the federal government at will.

“This court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the president how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will,” Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, who represents the Trump administration at the Supreme Court, told the justices in her emergency appeal this weekend.

But Trump is also picking a side in a much broader legal dispute over whether a president should have complete control of the executive branch or whether Congress can set up independent federal agencies and shield them from political pressure. That fight has been waged for decades and several of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court have signaled for years they may agree with Trump’s underlying position.

For-cause protections for federal officials have long been controversial. While President Jimmy Carter signed the law creating the special counsel, his own Justice Department originally questioned the constitutionality of those protections.

Is there precedent for this?

Dellinger’s case rests in part on a foundational 1935 precedent, Humphrey’s Executor v. US, that allows Congress to require presidents to show cause – such as malfeasance – before dismissing board members overseeing independent agencies.

But the Supreme Court’s conservatives have distanced themselves from that decision in recent years, most notably in a 2020 decision involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In that case, Seila Law v. CFPB, the court held that protections for the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau violated separation of powers principles. That controversial agency, originally envisioned by Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, was created in response to the 2008 financial meltdown and it has approved consumer-friendly regulations on mortgages, car loans and credit cards.

The president’s power to “remove – and thus supervise – those who wield executive power” flows directly from the Constitution, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

“The CFPB director has no boss, peers, or voters to report to,” Roberts wrote. “Yet the director wields vast rulemaking, enforcement, and adjudicatory authority over a significant portion of the US economy.”

In a section that Dellinger has repeatedly noted in court filings, Roberts mentioned the Office of Special Counsel in his opinion and, importantly, appeared to distinguish it from the CFPB.

The special counsel “exercises only limited jurisdiction to enforce certain rules governing federal government employers and employees,” Roberts wrote. “It does not bind private parties at all or wield regulatory authority comparable to the CFPB.”

The court’s 5-4 decision left Humphrey’s in place, with Roberts noting that it applied only to independent agencies led a by a single director rather than multi-member boards. But some on the court have openly called for Humphrey’s demise.

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, described the 1935 precedent as a “direct threat to our constitutional structure and, as a result, the liberty of the American people.”

So, what happens next with Dellinger?

It’s important to note that the emergency appeal over Dellinger’s removal is arriving at the Supreme Court in an emergency posture.

Because of that, the court could resolve it quickly without saying much – or anything – about these bigger questions about the constitutionality of for-cause protections.

In Dellinger’s case, a federal district court issued a temporary restraining order that blocked the Trump administration from enforcing the dismissal for a few weeks. Such temporary orders are, generally, not appealable.

By appealing anyway, Trump is also picking a fight with the courts about their own procedures. Even if a majority of the Supreme Court ultimately sides with Trump in Dellinger’s case down the line, it may very well rule against the administration on procedural grounds in this first skirmish.

In a 2-1 decision on Saturday night, the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit said the temporary order allowing Dellinger to remain in the post was not appealable. Reviewing such an order, the court said, “would be inconsistent with governing legal standards and ill-advised.”

The two judges in the majority in that decision were appointed by Biden. A third judge, appointed by Trump, said he would have granted the government’s request to block the lower court ruling that temporarily paused Dellinger’s dismissal.

If the Supreme Court agrees with the appeals court, a major question for legal observers is whether any of the justices will write opinions shedding light on their views about the merits of the case. Those opinions would provide clues about where the broader legal fight over Trump’s actions is headed.

The court has requested a response from Dellinger by 2 p.m. ET Wednesday, a quick turnaround by comparison with other emergency appeals. Notably, the high court did not agree to issue an administrative stay while it considers the Trump administration’s appeal. Look for an order by the end of the week, or early next.

Where’s Elon Musk in all of this?

While Dellinger’s case is the first to arrive at the Supreme Court from Trump’s litigious second term, it will not be the last. Nor is it the highest profile legal brawl already working through federal courts.

More than 60 lawsuits are already pending, including those challenging the president’s effort to wipe out birthright citizenship through an executive order and to freeze spending approved by Congress. Meanwhile, multiple lawsuits accuse the administration of violating privacy law and other protections in allegedly allowing affiliates of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to take control of highly restricted government IT systems.

Many of those cases are likely to work their way up to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket in coming weeks. Though Trump named three members of the current conservative majority – Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – neither his nominees nor the court more broadly has consistently sided with Trump.

CNN’s Elisabeth Buchwald, Tierney Sneed and Bryan Mena contributed to this report.

This story has been updated with additional developments.