Case Explained: JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE 4; JOHN DOE 5; JOHN DOE 6; JANE DOE 1; JANE DOE 2; JANE DOE 3; JANE DOE 4; JANE DOE 5 v. OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE; CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY; JOHN RATCLIFFE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-02

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction requiring the Central Intelligence Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to adhere to their internal Termination Regulation regarding employees facing termination as part of a reduction in force (RIF). The court held that the Intelligence Officers were likely to succeed on their Fifth Amendment procedural due process claims because the Termination Regulation created a legitimate claim of entitlement—a property interest—to specific procedural rights: consideration for reassignment within the Agency and an internal appeal of the termination decision. The court applied the standard from *Board of Regents v. Roth* and *Perry v. Sindermann*, determining that while the National Security Act grants Agency Directors broad discretion to terminate employees, the Termination Regulation constrains that discretion in RIF scenarios by mandating specific procedures. The court reasoned that because the regulation explicitly requires agencies to meet with employees to discuss reassignment and allows for internal appeals (unless terminated for revocation of classified access), it creates a mandatory outcome when certain conditions are met, thereby establishing a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause. The court rejected the Agencies’ arguments that disclaimers within the regulation negated these rights or that the Directors’ statutory discretion superseded the regulatory procedures applicable to RIFs. Regarding the *Winter* factors for preliminary injunctive relief, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s analysis. It held that the deprivation of constitutional due process rights constitutes irreparable harm, noting that reputational harm alone was insufficient but unnecessary to support the finding given the constitutional violation. The balance of equities and public interest favored the injunction because requiring the Agencies to follow their own regulations imposed a minimal burden compared to the harm to the officers, and retaining experienced intelligence personnel served the national security mission. The court further ruled that the injunction’s requirement for court authorization before implementing future terminations was a narrow, appropriate measure to ensure compliance with the regulation during the litigation. As a practical consequence, the CIA and ODNI are enjoined from effectuating or implementing any decision to terminate the named Intelligence Officers without first providing them the rights to seek reassignment and internal appeal as prescribed by the Termination Regulation, and they must obtain court authorization before proceeding with any such termination in the future.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.