A federal district judge on Thursday allowed the C.I.A. director, John Ratcliffe, to fire intelligence officers who had worked on diversity issues, a decision that could clear the path for the termination of other employees at the spy agency.
Speaking from the bench, Judge Anthony J. Trenga said he would have ruled differently if the issue had been basic fairness. But he said the law and regulations gave Mr. Ratcliffe unfettered authority to fire employees at will, and without the review of the courts.
The decision came as the agency moved to comply with President Trump’s executive order banning efforts to diversify the federal work force.
U.S. officials have not specified how many intelligence officers would be dismissed as part of that push. Lawyers for the officers said the agency had moved to fire as many as 51 so far. The agency is also considering taking action against some probationary employees and has encouraged some midcareer employees to consider leaving.
Ten of the intelligence officers who had sued to stop their firing were in the courtroom as the judge made his decision on a temporary restraining order. They looked dejected as the judge ruled that their complaint was unlikely to succeed and said he would not issue a restraining order.
In court proceedings, Kevin Carroll, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, has argued that his clients and the other officers the C.I.A. intends to fire had done nothing wrong, and in fact received offers for other roles in the C.I.A. One data scientist, he said, had nine different offers for jobs within the agency.
None of the officers are specialists in recruiting and diversity, and many of them had been ordered to take positions in recruiting, which was a priority under William J. Burns, the former C.I.A. director.
It was not clear on Thursday when the C.I.A. would resume meeting with the diversity officers to give them the choice of resigning or being fired.
After the ruling, the intelligence officers gathered in the lobby outside the courtroom. They criticized the assistant U.S. attorney who had argued the government’s case that Mr. Ratcliffe had the power to fire them without any right of appeal or review.
The C.I.A. has blocked the officers from speaking to reporters or revealing their identities, their lawyers said.
During the hearing, Judge Trenga suggested Mr. Ratcliffe review the cases individually and reconsider the firings. Several of the officers appeared skeptical.
Mr. Carroll said Mr. Ratcliffe should consider the judge’s advice and allow his clients to take the other positions they had been offered inside the agency.
“Given the judge’s remarks, he should allow them to apply to other jobs,” Mr. Carroll said. “It would be wise and just for the agency to allow their people to apply to other positions.”
In a statement released earlier in the day, the officers said they were only asking to be able to continue to serve their country and had been put on leave without just cause.
“We didn’t choose this legal battle for notoriety or profit,” the officers said. “We chose to fight because we want to return to protecting our great nation from her adversaries.”
The regulation Mr. Ratcliffe invoked to fire the officers allows no right of appeal, and the officers said that was fundamentally unfair.
“The government to which we have given over 285 years of collective service now offers us no due process, no dignity and no legitimate basis for firing us,” the statement said.
Seamus Hughes contributed research.
