Judge Declines to Halt Firing of DEI Staff at CIA and National Intelligence Amid Legal Challenges
A federal judge has declined to issue a preliminary injunction that would have prevented the termination of eleven employees working on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). The ruling comes in the wake of executive orders issued by former President Donald Trump that sought to dismantle DEI programs across the federal government.
U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga, presiding in Virginia, rejected the request to temporarily block the firings while the legal challenge proceeds. However, the judge extended the deadline to Monday for the affected employees to resign under a program that would ensure their continued pay through September 30.
Trump’s DEI directives aimed to eliminate preferential treatment in hiring, spending, and military affairs, with a stated emphasis on merit-based decision-making. The orders also had a ripple effect on private sector companies, leading some to reassess their DEI strategies. One of Trump’s orders asserted that the integration of DEI into institutions had "corrupted them by replacing hard work, merit, and equality with a divisive and dangerous preferential hierarchy."
The executive orders have faced considerable legal opposition, with multiple lawsuits alleging violations of federal workers’ and contractors’ free speech rights. A federal judge in Maryland has already issued a temporary injunction preventing the order from being applied to federal agencies and contractors. Civil rights organizations and a teachers’ union have also initiated separate lawsuits in California and Maryland to challenge the orders.
The eleven intelligence workers at the center of the case, consisting of six men and five women, filed their lawsuit alleging that they were placed on administrative leave without any evidence of misconduct. Subsequently, ten additional intelligence workers joined the lawsuit, representing a portion of the 51 individuals assigned to DEI programs who were placed on administrative leave following Trump’s orders.
A key aspect of the case involves the limited recourse available to intelligence staffers compared to other government employees. These workers lack the option to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, a mechanism typically available to federal employees facing adverse employment actions.
The intelligence workers contend that the government’s decision to terminate their employment is based on "their assumed beliefs" about diversity, equity, and inclusion, thereby infringing upon their First Amendment right to freedom of expression and their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
The lawsuit further argues that the workers’ "imminent termination is therefore arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with (intelligence community) regulations, and unsupported by any evidentiary record whatsoever."
Government lawyers have countered that the intelligence workers are not protected by the Administrative Procedure Act due to the unique nature of their positions. They assert that CIA and DNI officials possess broad authority to terminate employees within their respective agencies.
Government lawyers cited a February 18 memo from CIA Director John Ratcliffe, a former director of National Intelligence, in which he announced the ousters and indicated that further employee terminations may occur. The memo emphasized that "Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency may, in the discretion of the Director, terminate the employment of any officer or employee of the Central Intelligence Agency whenever the Director deems the termination of employment of such officer or employee necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States."
Despite the legal proceedings, the affected workers remain on administrative leave.
Kevin Carroll, a lawyer representing the intelligence workers, revealed that one of his clients sought permission from the judge to speak to reporters about her case after an intelligence office denied her request. The outcome of that request is not detailed in the report.
The case highlights the ongoing debate surrounding DEI initiatives in the government and private sectors, as well as the legal and constitutional challenges that can arise when such programs are altered or dismantled. The court’s decision not to issue a preliminary injunction suggests a reluctance to interfere with the executive branch’s authority over personnel decisions in intelligence agencies, but the underlying legal questions remain unresolved. The lawsuits filed by civil rights groups and a teachers’ union could also impact the long-term implications of the executive order.
The emphasis on merit, which is a central argument made by the former President and the government, also leaves the door open for disagreement. How do we define "merit?" Who decides that definition? It is possible to have the same outcome, in terms of diversity, equity, and inclusion, if we can all agree upon what "merit" means.
The case has potential implications for the future of DEI efforts across the federal government and the private sector, and may serve to further clarify the extent to which federal employees can be protected in their jobs.
