American Foreign Service Association urges State Dept to halt planned layoffs amid litigation
WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) - The American Foreign Service Association urged the State Department on Wednesday to not go ahead with a planned overhaul that likely would see around 2,000 layoffs of personnel, saying it should abide by a federal court that prohibits federal agencies from implementing mass firings.
The department has prepared to start sending hundreds of reduction-in-force notices to its domestic workforce as early as Friday, sources familiar with the plan said, but a final decision on the timing is yet to be taken. Ongoing litigation may well delay that timeline.
At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court can weigh in anytime on the administration's bid to halt the judicial order blocking mass job cuts.
"Sources inside the department tell us that layoffs will be announced as soon as the end of this week or early next week,' AFSA President Tom Yazdgerdi said in a statement.
"Unless the Supreme Court intervenes, the department is legally barred from taking any action outlined in its reorganization plans," Yazdgerdi said.
The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In late May, the administration notified Congress of a major plan to overhaul its diplomatic corps that will cut thousands of jobs including hundreds of members of its elite U.S. Foreign Service who advocate for U.S. interests in the face of growing assertiveness from adversaries such as China and Russia.
The reorganization was set to be largely concluded by July 1, officials said at the time.
Initial plans to send the notices earlier this month were put on hold after a federal judge in California on June 13 temporarily blocked the U.S. State Department from implementing the reorganization plan.
U.S. Department of Justice lawyer Alexander Resar said that the State Department would not issue layoff notices that were scheduled to go out on June 14.
The shake-up comes as part of an unprecedented push by President Donald Trump to shrink the federal bureaucracy, cut what he says is wasteful spending of American taxpayer money and align what remains with his "America First" priorities.
According to the plan shared with Congress in late May, the Department is expected to cut U.S.-based civil service and foreign service officers from the domestic workforce by 3,448 people, out of 18,780 people employed as of May 4.
More than 300 of the department's 734 bureaus and offices will be streamlined, merged or eliminated. More than 2,000 employees will be subject to job cuts while more than 1,500 will be subject to deferred resignations. It was not immediately clear how many of them would be foreign service versus civil service. Around 700 of those could be foreign service officers, one source said.
AFSA, established in 1924, has close to 16,800 members that include active-duty and retired staff of the Foreign Service at the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Foreign Commercial Service, Foreign Agricultural Service, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and U.S. Agency for Global Media.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
26 minutes ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court expected to rule on Obamacare preventive care task force
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on Friday on the legality of a key element of the Obamacare law, formally called the Affordable Care Act, that helps guarantee that health insurers cover preventive medical care such as cancer screenings at no cost to patients. The federal government has appealed a lower court's determination that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which under Obamacare has a major role in choosing what services will be covered, is composed of members who were not validly appointed. Its 16 members are appointed by the U.S. secretary of health and human services without Senate confirmation. Several individual Christian plaintiffs and two small businesses sued in federal court in Texas in 2020 to challenge the task force's structure. It was the latest in a years-long series of challenges to Democratic former President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement to reach the Supreme Court. Before the case was narrowed to the appointments issue, the plaintiffs had included a religious objection to being required to cover pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV. They claimed that such drugs "facilitate and encourage homosexual behavior, prostitution, sexual promiscuity and intravenous drug use." The U.S. government's appeal of the decision by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals initially was filed by Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration before being taken up by Republican President Donald Trump's administration. Public health advocates had warned that life-saving tests and treatments that have been cost-free under most insurance plans may become subject to co-pays and deductibles, deterring many Americans from obtaining them, if the justices upheld the 5th Circuit's ruling. A key question in the case was whether the task force wields power to such an extent that its members, under the Constitution's "appointments clause," are "principal officers" who must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate or "inferior officers" not subject to these requirements. The task force is made up of medical experts who serve four-year terms on a volunteer basis. It reviews medical evidence and public feedback and issues recommendations about which preventive services would be most effective for detecting illnesses earlier or addressing ailments before a patient's condition worsens. The task force has identified, opens new tab dozens of preventive services as having a high or moderate net benefit to patients including screenings to detect diabetes and various types of cancer, statin medications to lower the risk of heart disease and stroke, and interventions to help patients quit smoking or unhealthy alcohol use. The 5th Circuit ruled in 2024 that the task force's structure violates the Constitution, as the plaintiffs claimed. The justices during April 21 arguments in the case posed questions over whether the law gives the HHS secretary the appropriate level of supervision over the task force, including the power to influence its recommendations and fire members at will, or if it operates as a largely independent governmental body whose recommendations effectively have the force of law. The Justice Department urged the justices to view the task force's members as "inferior officers." Hashim Mooppan, a Justice Department lawyer, told the justices that the HHS secretary can remove task force members at will, review their recommendations and prevent them from taking effect, and can require the task force to obtain his approval before it issues any recommendations. The plaintiffs contended that the task force's lack of supervision and insulation from removal makes its members "principal officers." The 5th Circuit's ruling also rejected the government's request to remove certain offending words from the Obamacare provision at issue - a process called severing - in order to make that part of the law conform to the Constitution.
Reuters
26 minutes ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court set to rule in dispute over LGBT storybooks in school classes
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on Friday in a bid by Christian and Muslim parents in Maryland to keep their elementary school children out of certain classes when storybooks with LGBT characters are read in the latest case involving the intersection of religion and LGBT rights. Parents with children in public schools in Montgomery County, located just outside of Washington, appealed after lower courts declined to order the local school district to let children opt out when these books are read. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has expanded the rights of religious people in several cases in recent years, including in cases involving LGBT people. For instance, the court in 2023 ruled that certain businesses have a right under the First Amendment's free speech protections to refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings. The school board in Montgomery County approved in 2022 a handful of storybooks that feature LGBT characters as part of its English language-arts curriculum in order to better represent the diversity of families living in the county. The storybooks are available for teachers to use "alongside the many books already in the curriculum that feature heterosexual characters in traditional gender roles," the district said in a filing. The district said it ended the opt-outs in 2023 when the mounting number of requests to excuse students from these classes became logistically unworkable and raised concerns of "social stigma and isolation" among students who believe the books represent them and their families. Opt-outs are still allowed by the district for sex education units of health classes. The plaintiffs - who are Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox - said in their lawsuit that the storybooks "promote one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender transitioning and focus excessively on romantic infatuation - with no parental notification or opportunity to opt out." They said the First Amendment protects their right to instill religious beliefs and practices in their children, including on gender and sexuality that are "crucial for their children's ability to fulfill religious aspirations concerning marriage and family." Represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty conservative legal group, the parents who sued included Tamer Mahmoud, Enas Barakat, Chris Persak, Melissa Persak, Jeff Roman and Svitlana Roman, along with an organization called Kids First that seeks opt-out rights in Montgomery County. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024 denied a request by the plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction. The 4th Circuit said that there was no evidence that the storybooks are "being implemented in a way that directly or indirectly coerces the parents or their children to believe or act contrary to their religious faith." The plaintiffs told the Supreme Court that the 4th Circuit's decision undermined the right of parents to "protect their children's innocence and direct their religious upbringing." The school board emphasized in a brief to the court that mere exposure to content that parents find religiously objectionable does not violate the First Amendment. The Freedom From Religion Foundation secularism advocacy group in a filing to the Supreme Court supporting the school board said parents should not have the constitutional right "to ensure that all secular education materials conform with their personal religious beliefs." Such a rule would be boundless because "almost any book or idea - however commonplace or innocent - likely contradicts some religious ideals," the group said. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on April 22. The court's three liberal justices raised concerns about how far opt-outs for students could go beyond storybooks in public schools, offering examples of subjects such as evolution, interracial marriage or women working outside the home that might come up in classes. During the arguments, conservative Justice Samuel Alito cited one of the disputed storybooks that portrays a same-sex wedding and emphasized that the material promotes a moral message "that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with." In another religious rights case involving education, the Supreme Court in a 4-4 ruling on May 22 blocked a bid led by two Catholic dioceses to establish in Oklahoma the first taxpayer-funded religious charter school in the United States.
Reuters
26 minutes ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court poised to rule in challenge to Texas age-check for online porn
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on Friday in a challenge on free speech grounds to a Texas law that requires pornographic websites to verify the age of users in a case testing the legality of state efforts to keep minors from viewing such material online. A trade group representing adult entertainment performers and companies appealed a lower court's decision allowing the Republican-led state's age-verification mandate, finding that it likely did not violate the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment safeguard against government abridgment of speech. The Texas measure is one of 24 similar ones enacted around the United States, primarily in Republican-governed states, with some set to take effect in the months ahead, according to the Free Speech Coalition, which challenged the law. The law requires websites whose content is more than a third "sexual material harmful to minors" to have all users submit personally identifying information verifying they are at least age 18 to gain access. The case tested the limits of state powers to protect minors from explicit materials deemed by policymakers to be harmful to them with measures that burden the access of adults to constitutionally protected expression. Supreme Court precedents have protected access by adults to non-obscene sexual content on First Amendment grounds, including a 2004 ruling that blocked a federal law similar to the Texas measure. If the 2004 precedent prevents Texas from enforcing its law, then it should be overruled, the state argued, noting how the digital landscape has changed dramatically in the two decades since. The coalition, a trade association of adult content performers, producers and distributors, as well as companies that run pornographic websites including and argued that online age verification unlawfully stifles the free speech rights of adults and exposes them to increasing risks of identity theft, extortion and data breaches. Some sites like Pornhub blocked access entirely in states with age-verification laws. Steps such as content-filtering software or on-device age verification would better protect minors while respecting the rights of adults, according to the challengers. During Jan. 15 arguments, opens new tab in the case, the justices voiced worries about the pervasiveness of pornography online and the ease with which minors are able to access it. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the mother of school-age children, noted that minors can get online porn through cellphones, tablets, gaming systems and computers, and noted that there has been an "explosion of addiction to online porn." But some of the justices also expressed concern over the burdens imposed on adults to view constitutionally protected material, debating whether the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should have applied a stricter form of judicial review to the Texas law than the one it actually used that gave deference to legislators. U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra issued a preliminary injunction in 2023, blocking the law. The 5th Circuit ruled in 2024 that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in their First Amendment challenge to the age-verification requirement, lifting Ezra's injunction on that provision. The 5th Circuit upheld Ezra's injunction against another provision requiring websites to display "health warnings" about viewing pornography. The Supreme Court last year declined to halt enforcement of the law while the case proceeded.
