Court Voids USAGM RIF Over Vacancies Act Violation

A recent federal court ruling offers an important reminder that even major personnel actions must comply with the rule of law. In a decision involving the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), a federal judge ruled that Kari Lake was not lawfully serving as the agency’s Acting CEO. Because she lacked legal authority to hold the position, the court determined that actions taken under her leadership—including a reduction in force (RIF) targeting more than 500 employees—have “no force or effect.”

For federal employees, this decision underscores a foundational principle: who holds authority inside an agency matters just as much as what the agency does.

The Federal Vacancies Reform Act Sets Clear Limits

The Constitution and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) establish strict rules governing who may temporarily fill Senate-confirmed leadership roles. These rules are designed to protect the Senate’s advice-and-consent authority and prevent administrations from bypassing confirmation requirements.

Under the statute, an acting official must qualify through one of several specific pathways—for example, being a Senate-confirmed official in another role or serving as the “first assistant” to the vacant office under defined conditions.

In this case, the court found that none of those pathways applied. The government argued that Lake could serve because she had been designated “first assistant” after the vacancy occurred. The judge rejected that interpretation, explaining that allowing agencies to create eligibility after a vacancy exists would undermine the statute’s purpose and effectively sidestep Senate confirmation.

Delegation Cannot Be Used to Circumvent the Law

The government also offered a fallback argument: even if Lake was not the lawful acting CEO, the prior acting official had delegated most of the CEO’s powers to her. According to testimony, she was performing roughly 95 percent of the agency head’s duties.

The court rejected that argument as well.

The FVRA expressly prevents agencies from using broad delegation authority as a workaround for its restrictions. In other words, an agency cannot allow someone to run the office in everything but name if that person is not legally authorized to hold it.

That finding carried serious consequences. Because the personnel actions were taken by someone without lawful authority, the court ruled that those actions—including the August RIF notices—are void and cannot be ratified after the fact.

What This Means for Affected Federal Employees

For employees affected by the USAGM RIF, the decision creates a significant legal shift. When a court declares agency actions void under the Vacancies Act, those actions cannot simply be approved retroactively. Agencies must return to the legal starting point.

At the same time, caution is warranted. The agency has indicated it may appeal the ruling and could attempt to pursue a new reduction in force through officials with proper authority.

The practical takeaway is straightforward: do not make major career decisions based solely on agency threats that may no longer have legal footing. Speaking with a union representative or an experienced federal employment attorney can help clarify the options available in your specific situation.

A Reminder That the Rule of Law Still Matters

For many federal employees navigating uncertain policy changes and workforce reductions, the broader significance of this ruling is clear. The Appointments Clause and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act are not technicalities—they are structural safeguards designed to prevent unchecked executive power.

When agencies attempt to take life-altering employment actions without lawful authority, courts retain the power to intervene.

Legal Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. While I am a federal employment attorney, this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every situation is unique, and legal outcomes depend on specific facts and circumstances.