A federal judge has thrown out former longtime FBI agent Peter Strzok”s claims that his firing by the agency over anti-Donald Trump texts with ex-FBI lawyer Lisa Page violated his constitutional rights, instead crediting the testimony of bureau officials that said “the situation was unprecedented.”

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, a Barack Obama appointee, concluded Tuesday that Strzok’s First Amendment “interest in expressing his opinions about political candidates on his FBI phone” was “outweighed by the FBI’s interest in avoiding the appearance of bias in its ongoing investigations of those very people[.]”

Strzok and Page, remembered for their involvement in both the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server and in former special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Trump and his associates, each sued over the release of texts that led to a public shaming and the end of their FBI careers.

Strzok was, of course, grilled before Congress about his texts with Page, including one referring to an “insurance policy” months before Trump’s 2016 election win.

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Strzok’s text said. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40.”

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page asked.

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok answered.

Page later said that the “we” in the texts wasn’t a reference to the FBI as an institution and didn’t support Trump supporters’ claims of a so-called deep state “insurance policy” against his presidency.

Page, who resigned from the FBI, alleged — before a million-dollar settlement was reached in 2024 — that the release of the texts violated her privacy rights. Strzok had also alleged privacy violations, but additionally claimed he was wrongfully terminated for expressing protected speech in violation of the First Amendment and that his Fifth Amendment right to due process was also violated. With his case partially settled, Strzok’s constitutional claims lingered on.

Jackson, for her part, memorably presided over Trump confidant Roger Stone’s criminal trial and the Washington, D.C., sentencing of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort before both men eventually received Trump pardons during his first term as president.

As the judge explained in a brief summary judgment order, privacy issues were “no longer” part of the Strzok case and her ruling pertained only to Strzok’s First Amendment and Fifth Amendment claims.

The judge wrote that while it was “undisputed that Strzok served his country with distinction in the armed services and as an FBI Special Agent for twenty-five years” and rose through the ranks on a reputation of being “an extremely intelligent, talented, and hard-working Special Agent,” the balance tipped in the government’s favor because of Strzok’s rank.

“When assessing the type of First Amendment claim raised in Count One, a court must balance the government employee’s interest in speaking as a citizen on matters of public concern against his employer’s interest in preserving the effectiveness and efficiency of its operations,” the judge wrote. “The Court has considered the time, place, and manner of plaintiff’s comments, his rank and responsibilities, and the particular position of trust he held within the Bureau in 2017 and 2018, as the law requires it to do.”

“And it finds that his 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,” she added.

In addition, Strzok’s claim that he was “treated […] more harshly” than others would have been in “similar circumstances” fell flat due to the “unprecedented” nature of the situation.

“Each of the FBI officials deposed maintained that given plaintiff’s rank and his role in the two investigations, and the appearance of bias that permeated the messages, the situation was unprecedented, and there were no comparators,” Jackson said.

The judge also made quick work of Strzok’s Fifth Amendment claim, saying it was “predicated on a misrepresentation of the facts and distortion of the chronology.”

“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 judge concluded.

It was not immediately clear if Strzok will appeal.