By Jonathan Landay
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday argued that a judge could not block the firing of 21 CIA officers assigned to diversity, equality, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) programs because U.S. spy chiefs have the power to terminate them.
Congress vested CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, with the authority to fire personnel when they deem it “necessary or advisable” in the national interest, the Justice Department said in a brief filed in federal court in Virginia.
The case represents the first public battle between U.S. intelligence officers and President Donald Trump’s new spy chiefs over an order he issued ending DEIA programs across the federal government after his January 20 inauguration.
In its brief, the department opposed a temporary restraining order sought in a lawsuit brought on Monday by 11 CIA personnel, which was joined by 10 more officers during the week, their attorney, Kevin Carroll, told Reuters.
The new plaintiffs include Stephanie La Rue, who oversaw DEIA programs for the 18-agency U.S. intelligence community, said Carroll, a former undercover CIA officer.
The Justice Department filed its brief two days after U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Trenga issued a five-day administrative stay and set Monday for a hearing on the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order.
The plaintiffs are among 51 intelligence officers assigned to DEIA programs who were placed on paid administrative leave two days after Trump’s order.
All 51 officers were ordered to accept one of three options by 5 p.m. on Wednesday or be fired: retirement by October 1, resignation effective on Tuesday or termination on May 20, according to court papers.
Trenga’s administrative stay, which did not deal with the case’s merits, halted the terminations to give both sides time to make legal arguments.
Among the exhibits filed by the government on Thursday was a February 18 memorandum sent to senior CIA officials in which Ratcliffe indicated that he could order more personnel fired beyond the 51 on administrative leave.
In addition to arguing that Ratcliffe and Gabbard have the legal authority to fire personnel in the national interest, the Justice Department said the plaintiffs had failed to show “a clear likelihood” they would win the case.
It also argued that intelligence personnel are excluded from Civil Service protections and that the court lacked the jurisdiction to decide the case.
Longstanding U.S. Supreme Court rulings make clear that Ratcliffe’s decision to fire the officers “falls well within his discretion,” the department’s brief said.
Carroll told Reuters that the law allows Ratcliffe to fire personnel “for national security concerns, and we’re talking about more than four dozen people being fired for non-national security concerns.”
He also noted that the government said the officers had not lost their security clearances.
(Reporting by Jonathan Landay; Editing by Leslie Adler)
Comments