Background
Nineteen career intelligence officers at the CIA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence worked in DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility) positions implementing federal civil rights laws. Following President Trump’s Executive Orders 14151 and 14173 directing elimination of DEIA programs, the Office of Personnel Management issued memoranda ordering agencies to place DEIA employees on paid leave and conduct Reductions in Force (RIFs). The agencies terminated the officers without suggesting misconduct or performance deficiencies; the CIA Director explicitly stated the terminations were to “effectuate the directives” in the executive orders.
The officers sought a preliminary injunction in the Eastern District of Virginia requiring the agencies to comply with their own Termination Regulation before proceeding. That regulation provides certain employees terminated for excess personnel two specific rights: opportunity to seek reassignment within the agency, and internal appeal of termination decisions. The district court initially denied a temporary restraining order but, after the agencies refused to honor these rights, granted a preliminary injunction requiring compliance.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that federal courts possess jurisdiction to review constitutional claims against intelligence agencies, even though the National Security Act grants Directors broad termination discretion that precludes Administrative Procedure Act review. The Supreme Court’s decision in Webster v. Doe permits constitutional review despite precluding other judicial scrutiny of termination decisions.
The court held that the Termination Regulation creates protected property interests in the officers’ right to seek reassignment and right to internal appeal. Though the regulation repeatedly reaffirms Directors’ broad discretion to terminate, the regulation constrains that discretion in specific ways: it mandates that agencies must meet with employees facing RIF-based termination to consider reassignment, and that agencies must provide internal appeals except in limited circumstances (classif access revocation, contract/reserve employees). Because these conditions were met, the regulation created enforceable entitlements, similar to an employment policy that constrains discretion through substantive procedural requirements.
The court rejected the agencies’ argument that broad disclaimer language in the regulation defeated any property interest. The court found a legitimate claim of entitlement exists when regulations set substantive rules of decision such that a particular outcome becomes mandatory upon satisfaction of conditions. Here, the regulation mandated reassignment consideration and appeal rights when its triggering conditions—RIF terminations of covered employees—occurred. Denying these rights without procedural protections violated Fifth Amendment due process.
Key Takeaways
- Even when an employer has broad at-will termination discretion, a regulation can create protected procedural rights enforceable through due process if the regulation mandates specific outcomes when conditions are satisfied.
- Federal courts retain jurisdiction to hear constitutional due process challenges to intelligence agency actions, despite Webster v. Doe‘s preclusion of Administrative Procedure Act review.
- An agency’s own regulatory procedures can create property interests constraining its discretion; disclaimers of intent to create rights do not overcome mandatory language in substantive provisions.
- Preliminary injunction is warranted where the balance of equities favors requiring an agency to follow its own procedures, and public interest (national security expertise retention) supports compliance.
Why It Matters
This decision establishes that constitutional procedural due process protections attach to regulatory rights even when underlying employment itself is at-will. Intelligence officers—exempt from civil service protections that cover most federal employees—retain due process protection for the specific procedural rights their agencies’ own regulations grant. The holding constrains agency ability to unilaterally ignore internal procedures, even when implementing executive orders, by requiring that constitutional due process claims arising from regulatory entitlements be heard on the merits.
The decision has significance for presidential transitions and executive power: while Webster v. Doe shields termination decisions themselves from judicial review, this case holds that the procedural framework an agency uses to implement those decisions remains judicially enforceable when it creates regulatory entitlements. Agencies may not simply disregard their own binding procedures in response to new directives, at least when those procedures constrain discretion sufficiently to create property interests. The opinion does not address the ultimate merits of the underlying terminations or whether the officers will ultimately prevail on remand.