A split three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, held on Thursday that the federal government may not proceed with firing 19 intelligence officers who were temporarily assigned to roles tied to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility initiatives.
The 2-1 decision sustained an injunction issued by a lower court last year directing the Central Intelligence Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to give the affected employees the chance to seek reassignment to other positions and to use the agencies' internal appeal processes before terminating them.
Legal basis cited by majority
Writing for the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Nicole Berner invoked the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections, noting that the Constitution forbids depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." She added that this constitutional guarantee has been interpreted to require federal agencies to follow their own binding regulations: "This promise of due process has been construed to require federal government agencies to adhere to their own binding regulations," she wrote.
Berner's opinion said the officers were terminated by CIA Director John Ratcliffe and former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to carry out an executive order President Donald Trump signed shortly after returning to the White House in January 2025. The order sought to eliminate DEI programs across the federal government.
The majority stressed that the terminations occurred despite existing binding agency regulations that require giving employees the opportunity for reassignment and permitting internal appeals, provided the dismissals were not prompted by a loss of access to classified information.
Scope of personnel affected
The 19 career employees named in the suit had been temporarily assigned to DEI-related positions. They are part of a larger group of 58 CIA and ODNI officers who were placed on paid administrative leave because of their DEI assignments; those 58 remain on leave as of the court’s ruling. The agencies did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Reaction from plaintiffs' counsel
Kevin Carroll, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said the plaintiffs were "very grateful for the decision of the court," and that the ruling affirms intelligence officers’ due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Dissenting opinion
U.S. Circuit Judge Paul Niemeyer, the lone dissenter, argued that the agencies’ internal regulations cited by the majority were "irrelevant." Niemeyer, an appointee of Republican President George H.W. Bush, contended that Congress had given agency directors "unfettered discretion" to terminate employees. He called the preliminary injunction "unlawful" and said it should have been vacated promptly. Niemeyer added: "Now, unfortunately, that can only be done by the Supreme Court, which I can hope will consider this wrongful intrusion, which has far-reaching and unfortunate precedential effects."
Both judges in the majority were appointed by Democratic presidents; Niemeyer was appointed by a Republican president.
Implications
The appeals court ruling preserves the lower court’s requirement that the agencies provide reassignment and internal appeal opportunities to the 19 affected officers before finalizing their dismissals, except where security clearance revocation is at issue. The larger group of employees placed on administrative leave remains in that status pending further developments.