Former Agents Challenge FBI Dismissals
A quiet flag-raising on UND’s quad is a daily ritual; this week it became a reference point for a national dispute over what public servants can do during the anthem. A group of former FBI employees say they were fired after kneeling during national anthem observances and have sued the bureau for wrongful termination, according to statements from their attorneys describing a complaint they say was filed in federal court this week.
The plaintiffs argue their kneeling was a personal act of conscience protected under the First Amendment, not agency speech, and that their dismissals reflect a broader culture that chills dissent inside the bureau, according to their counsel’s summary. Legal scholars note that public-employee speech is governed by Supreme Court precedents that balance workers’ rights against an employer’s interest in maintaining discipline and efficiency (Pickering v. Board of Education; Garcetti v. Ceballos), a test that can be stricter for national-security agencies. The Office of Special Counsel also enforces the Hatch Act, which restricts partisan political activity by federal employees, but kneeling during the anthem is not itself a partisan act, according to OSC guidance on the statute.
Closer to home, UND and the City of Grand Forks generally encourage peaceful expression while setting time, place, and manner rules for safety on campus and in public spaces. For events requiring street closures or amplified sound, residents typically need a city special event permit; students and staff planning demonstrations on campus should coordinate with UND Facilities and the Dean of Students Office.
FBI’s Domestic Terror Designation Under the Microscope
At the same time, the FBI is facing renewed scrutiny over how it talks about “antifa” in domestic terrorism discussions. FBI Director Christopher Wray has said on multiple occasions that “antifa” is an ideology or movement—not a formal organization—and that the bureau investigates criminal acts by individuals regardless of ideology, according to his 2020 congressional testimony reported by NPR. The Justice Department does not maintain a list of designated domestic terrorist organizations; only the State Department can designate foreign terrorist organizations, as explained by the Congressional Research Service.
The distinction matters because labeling—formal or informal—can affect public perception and interagency tasking even when legal authorities remain the same. FBI guidance states that agents pursue threats based on criminal predicates, not beliefs, under domestic terrorism definitions laid out in federal law and bureau policy, as summarized on the FBI’s “What We Investigate” page. Civil liberties groups argue that collapsing ideology with organizational identity can chill protected speech or association, especially during protest seasons.
In Grand Forks, demonstrations over the last several years have been largely peaceful, with student-led gatherings along University Avenue and the Greenway focusing on policing and civic participation. Local organizers say ambiguity in national rhetoric can create confusion about what’s permitted, particularly for students balancing activism with on-campus jobs or internships at public agencies.
Reactions and Stakeholders’ Views
The FBI declined to comment on specific personnel actions but reiterated that its focus is “on individuals who commit or intend to commit violence and criminal activity,” not on ideology, consistent with Wray’s testimony and the bureau’s public materials. The Justice Department has similarly emphasized that domestic terrorism cases are charged under existing federal statutes for crimes such as conspiracy, weapons violations, or destruction of property, rather than membership in any domestic group, according to DOJ briefings summarized by the Congressional Research Service.
Civil rights advocates, including the ACLU of North Dakota, contend that government employees do not “shed their constitutional rights at the workplace door,” but acknowledge those rights are constrained by job duties, chain-of-command requirements, and special security rules in agencies like the FBI. Their concern is that discipline tied to symbolic political expression—like anthem kneeling—could deter lawful speech by other public servants and erode trust with communities.
On campus, UND political science faculty have noted in public forums that national-security agencies operate under stricter speech and conduct standards than typical civil service roles, reflecting classified work, impartiality requirements, and security clearance rules. Local officials also point out that military families at Grand Forks Air Force Base face even narrower boundaries: Department of Defense policy restricts political activities in uniform and on base, while permitting many off-duty, off-base activities when they do not imply official endorsement.
Legal and Societal Implications
The lawsuit tests how far First Amendment protections extend for federal employees engaged in symbolic protest while off duty or outside official events. Courts typically apply a two-step analysis: whether the expression involves a matter of public concern and, if so, whether the government employer’s interests in discipline and operational effectiveness outweigh the employee’s speech interests, per Pickering and Garcetti. For agencies that rely on public confidence and internal cohesion—like the FBI—employers often argue that even peaceful, symbolic acts can undermine perceived neutrality.
Another legal wrinkle is that many adverse actions at national-security agencies involve security clearances, which are difficult to challenge in court because clearance determinations are largely unreviewable (Department of the Navy v. Egan). If any dismissals hinged on clearance issues, that could narrow the plaintiffs’ path to relief. Conversely, if the case centers on viewpoint discrimination rather than operational concerns, plaintiffs may press that the bureau applied its policies unevenly.
Beyond the courtroom, the case feeds a broader debate about how federal agencies communicate around protest movements and political violence. Clearer, consistent language about domestic threats—paired with training that separates protected speech from criminal plotting—could reduce confusion for line employees and the public. It may also influence future updates to agency social media and conduct policies, including how managers handle symbolic expression that sparks public controversy.
Local Impact: UND, City, and the Base
UND students, staff, and contractors: Review campus demonstration and facility-use policies before organizing events; employees should check supervisor guidance on workplace expression, especially at university-sponsored ceremonies.
City of Grand Forks: Public demonstrations that use streets or amplified sound typically require coordination with the city and GFPD; organizers should build in lead time for permits.
Grand Forks Air Force Base families: Service members are subject to DoD rules that limit political activities while in uniform or on duty; consult base Public Affairs for current guidance before attending demonstrations.
Tip: If you’re planning a rally or teach-in, contact the City of Grand Forks for special event permitting, UND Facilities for campus space reservations, and Grand Forks AFB Public Affairs for base-specific rules.
Voices & Evidence
FBI Director Christopher Wray — “Antifa is an ideology, not an organization,” he told Congress in 2020, underscoring that FBI domestic terrorism cases target criminal activity, according to NPR’s report.
Congressional Research Service — DOJ lacks authority to designate domestic terrorist organizations; investigations proceed under existing criminal statutes, per a CRS legal sidebar.
FBI policy — The bureau’s domestic terrorism posture focuses on threats “without regard to political or social views,” as outlined on the FBI’s terrorism overview page.
Public-employee speech law — Courts balance employee rights and employer interests (Pickering; Garcetti), while security clearance decisions receive broad deference (Egan), per Supreme Court opinions summarized by the Legal Information Institute.
What to Watch
Court filings: We’re awaiting a docket number and initial hearing date; once posted, expect a briefing schedule within weeks. If the FBI moves to dismiss, early arguments will likely focus on whether the speech was job-related and any clearance issues.
Policy clarity: Watch for updated agency guidance on employee expression and protest-related conduct, along with congressional oversight letters pressing the FBI to clarify how it describes domestic threats.
