Federal judge dumps Peter Strzok lawsuit over FBI firing for anti-Trump texts

A federal judge rejected former FBI agent Peter Strzok’s claims that his termination from the federal law enforcement agency ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

Strzok was fired during President Donald Trump’s first term.

He sent anti-Trump text messages while leading the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump’s campaign and Russia.

‘At this point, only two issues remain to be resolved: did plaintiff’s termination violate the First Amendment, and did his termination violate the Fifth Amendment guarantee against the deprivation of property without due process of law?’ an order signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson explained.

Jackson was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by President Barack Obama.

The court found that Strzok’s ‘interest in expressing his opinions about political candidates on his FBI phone at that time was outweighed by the FBI’s interest in avoiding the appearance of bias in its ongoing investigations of those very people, and in protecting against the disruption of its law enforcement operations under then-Director Wray’s leadership.’

‘As to Count Two, the due process claim is predicated on a misrepresentation of the facts and distortion of the chronology,’ the document declares. 

‘Once one gets past the rhetoric and considers the undisputed factual record, it becomes clear that there is no evidence to support a finding that plaintiff entered into a contract … that gave him a property interest in his tenure before the Deputy Director exercised his authority to terminate him, or that plaintiff lacked notice and an opportunity to be heard before his fate was decided,’ the document notes.

‘The full Memorandum Opinion has been docketed under seal,’ the order notes, adding that in the court’s perspective, ‘nothing in the Memorandum Opinion needs to remain sealed, and therefore, the parties must inform the Court by September 30, 2025 of whether they have any objection to the Court’s unsealing the Memorandum Opinion in its entirety, and if so, specifying what portions they believe should remain under seal and why.’