Thread by @benjaminwittes

One nice thing about remote court hearings is that you don’t have to stand when the judge enters. Listening to the court call the status hearing in the @petestrzok and @NatSecLisa privacy act lawsuit in bed.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson has just announced that she is ruling on the government’s motions to dismiss and for for summary judgment in the cases. She will not be issuing a written opinion.

She is now giving the factual background. She says she has a LOT to say and that we should pour ourselves a cup of coffee.

The two cases have been consolidated for purposes of common issues in the motions to dismiss/summary judgment.

Jackson has announced that she will rule that the matter is not yet ripe for summary judgment given the number of disputed issues of fact.

She is now back to giving a lengthy factual history of the cases.

Strzok also has claims related to his allegations of wrongful termination.

Judge Jackson denies government’s motion for summary judgment on Privacy Act claims.

She is now going through the history of the Justice Department’s disclosure of the Strzok-Page texts.

The question turns on whether DOJ's disclosure of the material to Congress and in secret to the press was a "routine use" of the texts.

The government argues that the disclosure constitutes routine use and was, in any event, not a willfull violation.

Judge ABJ finds that the defense "doesn't cut it." We are "nowhere near" the point where there are no disputes of fact. There are "Unresolved issues of fact at every turn."

She asserts grave doubt that secretly releasing text message, swearing reporters to secrecy, and misrepresenting it the next day is a routine use.

She is outlining extensive issues of fact to develop, including on the question of willfulness.

She acknowledges that @RodRosenstein's state of mind in authorizing the disclosures may be a hurdle for the plaintiffs in ultimately prevailing--but she says they are entitled to discovery on the subject.

She is clearly disturbed that DOJ told reporters they could not disclose that the texts had come from the department.

She also denies FBI's motion to dismiss itself--as disclosures clearly came from DOJ.

“The FBI May very well fall out of this case but it’s premature.”

Now on the Strzok’s First Amendment claims....

Strzok contends he was fired because of protected expression of private political opinions.

Government’s motion for dismissal/summary judgment argues that messages posed risks to investigation and FBI’s interests. And action was therefore appropriate.

Jackson notes that government does not seem to dispute that Strzok’s complaint states a claim under the First Amendment.

Strzok has stated a claim under the First Amendment, Judge ABJ rules. The motion to dismiss is denied.

Summary judgment here too is premature, she rules.

She rules that the FBI’s claim that its interests in the appearance of objectivity outweigh Strozk’s First Amendment rights involve contested points of law and fact and require factual development on discovery.

On to Strzok’s 5th Amendment due process claim....

Strzok contends that he had a property interest in his employment because he was offered and signed a last chance agreement, which was a contract, and that the FBI contended this was the FBI’s final position.

Judge ABJ reviews the evidence and law suggesting that the agreement was, in fact, a contract--which the government denies.

She also reviews the contrary evidence.

She rules that Strzok has stated a claim under the 5th Amendment. Motion to dismiss is denied. Ditto motion for summary judgment where there are genuinely disputed issues of fact.

Judge ABJ is wrapping up now: "THAT is all I have to say this morning," she says with a chuckle.

Total victory, at least today, for @petestrzok and @NatSecLisa.

And we're done.