A Biden-appointed judge just slammed the door on a lawsuit filed by FBI agents trying to drag the Trump administration through the mud. On Thursday, Judge Jia Cobb tossed out the case, calling the agents’ fears of retaliation pure speculation, as the Daily Caller reports. These agents, who worked on January 6 investigations, thought they could sue based on what-ifs, but Cobb wasn’t buying it.
FBI agents filed the lawsuit in February, whining about a DOJ survey on their January 6 work. The entire saga began when they were asked to fill out a simple questionnaire. Apparently, that was enough to spark paranoia about their names being splashed across headlines.
The agents claimed the Trump administration might retaliate and leak their identities to the public. They argued this internal review violated their First Amendment rights. Sounds like a blockbuster movie plot, except they forgot to bring any evidence.
Judge Cobb’s 32-page opinion was a masterclass in cutting through nonsense. “They do not plausibly allege that Defendants are about to engage in any of the conduct agents are worried about,” she wrote. The agents’ fever dreams of public exposure got a reality check.
Cobb didn’t stop there, shredding their First Amendment claims like confetti. She noted their fears of “hypothetical, future terminations” and vague “adverse actions” were nowhere near concrete enough to justify a lawsuit. It’s almost like they thought feelings trump facts in court.
The judge pointed out the obvious: no evidence suggested the Trump administration planned to dox these agents. “There is nothing in Plaintiffs’ amended complaint or the record before the Court” to back their claims, Cobb wrote. That’s a polite way of saying they brought an empty briefcase to a gunfight.
The agents tried to argue that the DOJ’s internal review itself was an attack on their free speech. But as Cobb sharply noted, those allegations were “conspicuously absent” from their amended complaint. Sloppy lawyering doesn’t win cases, folks.
Mark Zaid, the agents’ lawyer, patted himself on the back, claiming, “We stopped that cold.” He boasted that their February lawsuit prevented a supposed name-drop catastrophe. Five months later, with no evidence to show for it, his victory lap looks more like a stumble.
The lawsuit’s timing reeks of political posturing. Filed just weeks after Trump’s team took office, it feels like a preemptive strike to paint the administration as vindictive. Too bad for them, judges like Cobb demand pesky things like proof.
Cobb ruled the agents lacked standing because their concerns were “too speculative.” They couldn’t point to a single concrete threat of retaliation or public disclosure. It’s hard to win when your case is built on hypotheticals thinner than a progressive’s policy logic.
The agents’ paranoia centered on a routine DOJ survey about their January 6 work. They spun this into a grand conspiracy of retaliation and doxxing. Cobb saw right through it, refusing to entertain their baseless panic.
This isn’t the first time federal employees have tried to weaponize the courts against political opponents. The agents’ lawsuit reads like a playbook from the anti-Trump resistance, grasping at straws to undermine the administration. Too bad the judiciary isn’t a stage for their drama.
Judge Cobb’s ruling is a rare win for reason in a world obsessed with woke hysterics. The agents wanted a free pass to sue based on feelings, not facts. Cobb’s decision reminds us that courts aren’t here to coddle overactive imaginations.
Zaid’s claim that they “stopped” a name leak is laughable when no such plan ever existed. “If threat arises again, we will sue,” he warned. Good luck finding a judge who’ll entertain that fantasy twice.
This case exposes the left’s obsession with turning every administrative hiccup into a constitutional crisis. The Trump administration dodged a frivolous lawsuit, and taxpayers didn’t have to foot the bill for this legal charade. For once, common sense prevailed.
