Does the First Amendment protect a senior FBI agent’s right to express contempt for a political candidate he is actively investigating? In a powerful and constitutionally significant ruling, a federal judge has just delivered a definitive answer: no.
The dismissal of former FBI agent Peter Strzok’s wrongful termination lawsuit is more than just the end of a long and politically charged legal battle. It is a vital “teaching moment” on the constitutional limits of free speech for our most sensitive government employees, and a forceful affirmation of the principle that the rule of law depends on the absolute impartiality – both real and perceived – of those who enforce it.
A Lawsuit Dismissed
Peter Strzok was a senior counterintelligence agent at the FBI and a lead investigator on the “Crossfire Hurricane” probe into the 2016 Trump campaign. He was fired after a series of his text messages, expressing extreme political animus toward then-candidate Trump, were discovered. In his lawsuit, Strzok claimed his termination violated his First Amendment right to free speech and his Fifth Amendment right to due process.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an appointee of President Obama, rejected both claims. She ruled that the FBI’s compelling interest in “avoiding the appearance of bias” outweighed Strzok’s personal speech rights in this context.
The Constitutional Balancing Act
This ruling is a classic application of a constitutional principle established by the Supreme Court nearly 60 years ago. In the 1968 case Pickering v. Board of Education, the Court created a balancing test to weigh the free speech rights of government employees.
The Pickering test requires a court to balance the employee’s rights as a private citizen to speak on matters of public concern against the government’s interests, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency and integrity of its public services. Judge Jackson found that the FBI’s need to protect its law enforcement operations and maintain the public’s trust in its neutrality was a paramount concern that far outweighed Strzok’s right to send those messages on his FBI-issued phone.
Why the “Appearance of Bias” Is Everything
The most important phrase in the judge’s entire ruling is “avoiding the appearance of bias.” This is the core of the constitutional issue.
For an institution like the FBI, which holds the immense power to investigate, surveil, and deprive citizens of their liberty, public trust is its most valuable and fragile asset. Strzok’s texts, once they became public, inflicted a grievous and lasting wound on that trust. For millions of Americans, they created an indelible impression that the nation’s premier law enforcement agency was politically compromised, a perception that has damaged the Bureau’s credibility to this day.
The dismissal of this lawsuit is a significant and constitutionally sound decision. It is a sober reminder that with great power comes great responsibility. Those who are entrusted with the authority to investigate their fellow citizens have a higher, constitutional duty to remain – and to appear to remain – impartial. The First Amendment protects a citizen’s right to speak, but it does not protect a federal agent’s right to poison the well of public trust.