Appeals Court Orders Rehire of 19 Officers

Appeals Court Orders Rehire of 19 Officers
Image source: NBC News
Save
0:00 / 0:00

A federal appeals court ordered the Trump administration to rehire intelligence officers who had been fired over temporary assignments related to diversity, saying spy agencies must uphold employees' constitutional right to due process.

The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence failed to abide by their own regulations when they fired 19 career intelligence officers who had been assigned to jobs promoting diversity.

The intelligence officers argued their firings were "arbitrary" and "unsupported by any evidentiary record whatsoever," and said they should have been reassigned to new duties instead of being penalized for jobs a previous administration ordered them to carry out.

Attorneys representing the government argued the head of the CIA, John Ratcliffe, and the director of national intelligence had unfettered authority to terminate employees with or without cause.

Kevin Carroll, the lawyer representing the intelligence officers, welcomed the court's decision. "We are gratified by the Court of Appeals upholding the District Court's injunction. Intelligence officers have due process rights, too," Carroll said in a statement. "The CIA director and the acting director of national intelligence, Bill Pulte, now ought to get these good Americans back to work for our country," he added.

The judges' ruling said the key question before the court was whether the intelligence agencies' termination rules granted an employee the right to be considered for reassignment and to appeal a termination decision. "We find that it does," the appeals court wrote.

It remained unclear when the intelligence officers at the CIA and the intelligence director's office would be rehired and given new assignments, and the Trump administration is likely to appeal the ruling. The CIA and the intelligence director's office did not respond to a request for comment.

Source
Discussion 0 comments