Filed Date: Jan. 21, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a lawsuit challenging as unlawful the termination of 29 USAID employees.
On January 21, 2026, twenty-nine former employees employees appointed to foreign service employment with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of the District of Columbia. They sued USAID, the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency. Plaintiffs alleged that they had been terminated due to their presumed partisan affiliation with the Democratic Party, in violation of their First Amendment rights to free speech and association. They further asserted violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, alleging that their dismissals fell substantially short of the requirements of applicable agency regulations requiring that all personnel programs at USAID be administered without discrimination on the basis of partisan affiliation and in accordance with merit principles set forth in the Foreign Service Act. They also brought a claim for violation of the Administrative Leave Act, because they were placed on administrative leave for more than ten workdays in violation of that Act. They also asserted that the termination decision was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Finally, they asserted claims for mala fide reduction in force, noting that they had been removed under the guise of a reduction in force and therefore denied the right to hearing and review under the Foreign Service Act, and for ultra vires termination, alleging that the agency termination decision purported to be from an official with the authority to make such a decision, and was actually made by someone without that authority.
Plaintiffs sought: declaratory relief; an injunction precluding enforcement of the unlawful terminations, prohibiting defendants from taking action to evaluate partisan affiliation of applicants for plaintiffs' positions, ordering defendants to individually evaluate plaintiffs' performance and to declare under oath the individualized reason for the termination, enjoining rehiring for similar positions for which plaintiffs are qualified without giving plaintiffs' the chance to be restored, and ordering updates to plaintiffs' personnel files and to correct their retirement statutes; backpay, benefits, damages, fees, and costs. The case was assigned to Judge Timothy J. Kelly.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Clearinghouse (2/3/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72171728/parties/smith-v-united-states-agency-for-international-development/
Kelly, Timothy James (District of Columbia)
Craig, Thomas Mitchell (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72171728/smith-v-united-states-agency-for-international-development/
Last updated April 10, 2026, 3:23 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 21, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
29 former USAID employees
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
U.S. Agency for International Development
U.S. Department of Government Efficiency
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Office of Management and Budget
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Leave Act, 5 U.S.C. § 6329a
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:26-cv-00183
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority:
DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency)
Case Summary of Smith v. U.S. Agency for International Development, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47740/ (last updated 2/3/2026).