A federal judge has ruled that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other officials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must be deposed in a lawsuit challenging staffing cuts at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). U.S. District Judge Susan Illston authorized these depositions following a hearing where discrepancies emerged regarding who decided to halt the reappointment of several hundred FEMA employees.
In her order issued on March 3, 2023, Judge Illston granted permission for Noem and Karen Evans, the senior official currently fulfilling the duties of FEMA administrator, to be questioned under oath. Additionally, she ordered the chief human capital officers of both DHS and FEMA to also provide testimony. The court has mandated the production of documents related to the renewal or nonrenewal of the Cadre of On-Call Response/Recovery Employees (CORE), as well as any communications surrounding these decisions.
The lawsuit, filed by unions and nonprofit organizations in late January, alleges that the mass non-renewal of CORE employees violates provisions of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, which limits DHS’s authority to implement significant changes at FEMA. The plaintiffs contend that this action undermines the agency’s ability to respond effectively in emergencies.
During a tense court hearing, Judge Illston indicated that her “preliminary view” was to deny the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction to prevent further staff reductions at FEMA. She stated that the evidence presented was insufficient to determine whether DHS directed FEMA to cut staffing levels or if CORE employees were typically renewed based on supervisor recommendations.
The situation became more complicated when Justice Department attorney Robert Bombard claimed that DHS played no role in the decision to not reappoint many CORE employees, asserting that FEMA leadership made these decisions independently. This assertion contradicted Evans’ earlier written statement, which indicated that DHS had indeed decided against reappointing the CORE staff.
“The whole case is about that, right?” Judge Illston asked Bombard, questioning the inconsistency in the statements. Bombard acknowledged, “I don’t have a great explanation for that.”
Debate in the courtroom has primarily focused on the extent of DHS’s authority over FEMA staffing decisions. Noem has previously stated her intention to overhaul FEMA significantly, suggesting that the agency should be “eliminated as it exists today.” Notably, while FEMA paused the blanket non-renewals prior to a winter storm in late January, plaintiffs highlighted a workforce planning exercise from December that suggested a potential 50% reduction in FEMA’s staff.
The plaintiffs argue that the pause in non-renewals was simply a reaction to the lawsuit, with Danielle Leonard, counsel for the plaintiffs, asserting, “They’ve only paused it because we sued them, and they’re waiting to see what this court is going to do.” Bombard countered by stating that the December email merely represented an exercise and emphasized that there is currently “no plan at this time” to implement such drastic workforce reductions.
He also cautioned that granting an injunction to stop further cuts would effectively make CORE staff “de facto permanent employees,” arguing that the CORE structure is designed to be flexible and responsive to the agency’s needs. “It’s not a one-way street,” he noted, emphasizing the necessity of maintaining an agile workforce.
As the court proceedings move forward, the outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for FEMA’s operational structure and staffing policies.
