A federal judge in Washington, D.C., provided a history lesson focused on Richard Nixon and Watergate before ruling against the reinstatement of eight inspectors general who were dismissed following President Donald Trump’s email-driven termination spree shortly after his second inauguration.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, appointed by Joe Biden, referenced the aftermath of Nixon’s resignation, describing how public demand for reform and legislative efforts to restore trust led to the 1978 creation of the Inspector General Act (IGA). This law was intended to strengthen the role of independent government officials responsible for oversight to combat inefficiency, fraud, and misuse of resources within the executive branch and various agencies.

Reyes suggested that similarly, after Trump’s initial term saw the dismissal of inspectors general on the basis of mere “loss of confidence,” Congress in 2022 modified the law. The amendment required the president not only to provide Congress with “30 days’ notice” before firing inspectors general but also to disclose comprehensive and specific reasons for such decisions.

Judge Reyes noted that shortly after starting his second presidential term, Trump dismissed the eight inspectors general who were plaintiffs in the case without prior notice to Congress or providing any detailed reasons for their departure.

Despite concluding that Trump had clearly breached the IGA, the inspectors general who filed the lawsuit — Robert Storch from the Department of Defense, Michael Missal of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Christi Grimm from Health and Human Services, Cardell Richardson, Sr. of the State Department, Sandra Bruce of the Education Department, Phyllis Fong from Agriculture, Larry Turner of Labor, and Hannibal “Mike” Ware from the Small Business Administration — were unsuccessful in their arguments for reinstatement or in seeking 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.