When a judge ruled that judge Amy Barrett’s lawsuit against the Trump administration wasn’t frivolous, she lost her job

Judge Amy Barret was fired in August after she sued President Donald Trump and his administration over the Dakota Access Pipeline, according to the Washington Post.

She filed her lawsuit on behalf of her sister, who works in law enforcement.

Barret, a Democrat, won a federal judge’s dismissal of her case last week, which was the first time a federal court had ruled against a lawsuit brought by an employee of a federal government.

The dismissal comes after the Trump Justice Department argued that Barret wasn’t a credible witness.

The judge was among dozens of federal judges who have faced criticism over the Trump Administration’s handling of the case.

Barrett told Fox News that the decision to fire her was “outrageous.”

“This was the wrong decision,” she said.

“It’s outrageous that I’m fired.

I’m not being fired, and I’m suing because they’re not taking care of my needs.”

The judge’s decision to dismiss the case comes after a series of public comments made by Barret and other federal judges that have drawn criticism from other judges, including from former White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.

In a tweet on Thursday, Barret called the comments “outlandish.”

“You have been asked to defend the administration’s actions,” Barret wrote.

“The answer is, you cannot defend it.

Your job is to interpret the law, not to dictate it.

It is time for you to resign.”

The Post reported that Barrett said she “did not think she could win the case, and she wasn’t trying to win it,” the newspaper reported.

Barrets lawyer, Brian C. Riedel, told the Post that Barrets comments were “unsupported by the facts,” and that Barreys claim of a “conspiracy theory” was “a fig leaf.”

“Judges are public servants,” Riedels defense argued.

“They are supposed to be unbiased, and when they are criticized they should respond appropriately and not to silence them.

This was not the kind of response they were giving.”

Barret’s lawyer, David M. Schwartz, also told the newspaper that Bar Retts comments were not representative of the federal judges’ public duties.

“She had no knowledge of the facts in this case,” Schwartz said.

The court’s decision “is not surprising,” Schwartz added.

“But it does make the public more aware of the fact that the federal judiciary is in a crisis situation.”

Barrett filed her case after the pipeline construction company Morton County filed a lawsuit against her, claiming the judge improperly interfered in their dispute over the pipeline’s location.

In the lawsuit, Morton County asserted that the pipeline could be built anywhere on federal land, including within the parklands.

The suit was eventually dismissed, and the Trump government withdrew its claim.

The lawsuit against Barret has drawn criticism among judges across the country.

Judges from across the political spectrum have also criticized Barret for her handling of Barrets case.

“This was not a ‘no-brainer,'” said one judge, who did not want to be named.

“What did you do?

Was she a good judge?

That’s not what this was about.”