U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga temporarily blocked the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) from firing employees involved in DEI programs.
Upon consideration of the filings, the record in this case, and oral argument, the Court concludes that it would benefit from Defendants’ response to the Motion, including clarification as to what Agency regulations are implicated in this case and the potential irreparable harm to Plaintiff John Does 1-6 and Jane Does 1-5. As the Court awaits full briefing and argument on the Motion, it exercises its powers under the All Writs Act and its inherent powers to manage its docket, to issue an administrative stay.
Trenga scheduled the hearing for Monday, February 24. The defendants have until the 20th to file a response to the motion.
The plaintiffs can reply to any of those responses by the 21st.
President Donald Trump ordered heads of agencies to fire staffers associated with the DEI offices.
The CIA and DNI offered buyouts to the fired employees.
The 11 employees claimed:
Defendants ODNI and CIA and their directors, Defendants the Hon. Tulsi Gabbard and the Hon. John Ratcliffe, violated the Administrative Leave Act by placing Plaintiffs on administrative leave for more than ten workdays, despite the absence of any individual accusation of misconduct. Defendants further violated the Administrative Procedure Act. While intelligence officers lack recourse to the Merit System Protection Board (“MSPB”), their own agencies classified internal regulations provide procedures for terminating officers. Officers’ basic rights include notice, the development of a record, to consult with counsel, and the opportunities to be heard and to appeal. Plaintiffs have received none of these rights.
“They say this is to comply with the executive order, which is really dumb because the executive order talks about ending DEI functions. It doesn’t say you have to fire DEI personnel. And nobody is hired into the CIA to be a DEI guy. It’s a rotational duty, like you have in the Army or anywhere else,” said attorney Kevin Carroll, according to Politico. “So, they can simply just reassign these people back to being an analyst or scientist or case officer, whatever they did before instead of firing them. It’s arbitrary and capricious.”
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY