A federal judge in Washington, D.C., delivered a Richard Nixon and Watergate-centered history lesson before finding that there was no path to reinstating eight fired inspectors general to their posts following President Donald Trump”s firing-by-email spree days after his second inauguration.

The Wednesday ruling from U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Joe Biden appointee, began by recounting the fallout of Nixon “resigning in disgrace,” as “a public insistent on change and […] a legislature scrambling to shore up public trust” led to the enactment in 1978 of the Inspector General Act (IGA), which aimed to empower independent government watchdogs to “combat bureaucratic waste, fraud, and abuse” through oversight of the executive branch and across government agencies.

Similarly, suggested Reyes, following Trump’s first-term firings of inspectors general without offering reasons beyond “loss of confidence,” Congress in 2022 added an amendment saying the president not only had to give Congress “30 days’ notice” before IG firings become effective, but also reveal “the substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons.”

Mere days into his second term as president, the judge added, Trump ousted the plaintiffs — eight inspectors general — and “did not first notify Congress and […] did not provide any rationale, much less a substantive one containing detailed and case-specific reasons for the firing.”

This Reyes, concluded, makes it “obvious” that Trump violated the IGA, but the fired inspectors general who sued — Robert Storch of the Department of Defense, Michael Missal of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Christi Grimm at the Department of Health and Human Services, Cardell Richardson, Sr. at the State Department, Sandra Bruce at the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture’s Phyllis Fong, the Department of Labor’s Larry Turner, and the Small Business Administration’s Hannibal “Mike” Ware — and their “compelling arguments” to be reinstated to their roles failed along with their quest for a permanent injunction.

“[U]nder well-established case law that this Court is bound to follow, Plaintiffs must show irreparable harm. And they cannot,” Reyes explained, before alluding to the Trump administration’s argument that the IGA is an “unconstitutional intrusion” on Trump’s constitutional powers. “Even assuming that the IGA comports with Article II, Plaintiffs’ inability to perform their duties for 30 days is not irreparable harm. Moreover, if the IGs were reinstated, the President could lawfully remove them after 30 days by providing the required notice and rationale to Congress.”

Under the analysis section of the opinion, the judge pointed out that the Supreme Court has “repeatedly declined to extend precedents limiting executive removal power” and appears poised to do the same by undoing the 90-year-old precedent of Humphrey’s Executor, which would greenlight Trump’s firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, and in the opinion of the high court’s liberal minority, would hand the president “full control” of independent agencies.

Describing limits on presidential removal precedents as “on thin—and rapidly melting—ice,” Reyes slammed the brakes on the lawsuit with a stay while indicating she is watching the Slaughter case closely and said she would “not decide the merits” of the fired IGs’ claims and “whether they are entitled to legal remedies, such as back pay, at this time” because the eventual SCOTUS ruling “may bear on the issues presented here.”

Even as the judge said her hands were tied, Reyes stated the IGs “deserved better from their government” and “still do.”

“The Court recognizes Plaintiffs’ exceptional service as IGs, marked by decades of distinguished leadership across multiple administrations,” Reyes concluded. “They sacrificed much to take on the role of an IG and its many demands—no doubt including substantial time away from family and far larger paychecks available in the private sector.”

The judge issued one final order at the end of her opinion: for plaintiffs and defendants to file a status report “within 14 days of the Supreme Court’s decision in Slaughter” on whether the fired IGs “plan to seek traditional legal remedies such as back pay, and if so, proposing a briefing schedule for summary judgment.”

Oral argument in the Slaughter case is currently on track for December.