Former federal prosecutor is suing DOJ for ‘unlawful and retaliatory’ firing
Former Federal Prosecutor Sues DOJ Over Retaliatory Firing
Ecorescuezone.com – A former federal prosecutor is suing the Justice Department, alleging that her termination was an act of political retribution tied to her prosecution of anti-abortion activists under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Sunita Doddamani, who served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Michigan, filed a federal complaint characterizing her dismissal as “politically motivated and retaliatory.” She asserts violations of the Civil Service Reform Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the First and Fifth Amendments.
How the Dismissal Unfolded
Doddamani’s employment ended on April 13 with no advance notice, no articulated cause, and no opportunity for due process. According to her complaint, the unstated rationale was her role in prosecuting eight individuals charged with violating the FACE Act, a federal statute prohibiting intentional interference with reproductive health care services, including access to abortion clinics.
She was not the only one removed that day. At least two other prosecutors who had handled FACE Act matters were terminated simultaneously. The department announced the action through a social media post stating it had “terminated the employment of personnel responsible for weaponizing the FACE Act who still remained at the department.” The following day, DOJ released a report accusing the prior administration of deploying the statute as a political instrument against anti-abortion activists rather than as a routine enforcement tool.
The FACE Act: Origins and Current Controversy
Enacted in the early 1990s in response to escalating violence at abortion clinics, the FACE Act was designed to shield reproductive health workers from intimidation and physical obstruction. Supporters view it as filling a critical protective gap; critics have long argued that its language on intentional interference encroaches on the free-speech rights of those who protest outside clinic entrances.
The debate sharpened early in President Trump’s second term. The Justice Department announced it would cease enforcing FACE Act violations except in extraordinary circumstances involving death or serious property damage. Separately, Trump granted pardons to 23 individuals previously convicted under the statute, effectively nullifying sentences imposed under the prior administration’s enforcement posture.
Allegations, Defendants, and Relief Sought
The complaint names seven defendants, including Attorney General Todd Blanche and the Justice Department itself. It contends that the termination was not a routine personnel decision but a calculated act of political retribution for having pursued cases the current leadership now disfavors.
“Unlawful terminations are a frequent tool of the Trump Administration to achieve its political aims,” the lawsuit states. “DOJ officials have repeatedly attempted to justify firings and workforce reductions by portraying the employees targeted as culpable for the now-disfavored cases they had been assigned.”
Doddamani alleges she has “suffered adverse and harmful effects” from the dismissal, including lost or jeopardized present and future financial opportunities and reputational damage in a profession where perceived political alignment shapes career prospects. She seeks a judicial declaration that her constitutional and statutory rights were violated, reinstatement into her former position, backpay covering the period since April 13, and additional equitable relief. The Justice Department declined to comment beyond pointing back to its April social media announcement.
The suit is the latest in a series of challenges filed by former career Justice Department employees who allege they were removed for improper political reasons rather than performance or budgetary causes. Each complaint follows a similar arc: a prosecutor handles a case the incoming leadership views as ideologically motivated, the department publicly denounces the case as an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, and the employee is terminated without stated cause or procedural safeguards.
Frequently Asked Questions
What statute is at the center of the lawsuit? The FACE Act (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act), enacted in the early 1990s, bars intentional interference with reproductive health care services. Doddamani’s prosecution of eight defendants under that statute is cited as the motive for her firing.
What legal claims does the complaint assert? Doddamani alleges violations of the Civil Service Reform Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the First and Fifth Amendments, arguing the dismissal was politically motivated and deprived her of due process.
What relief is she requesting? A declaration that her rights were violated, reinstatement to her former position, backpay from April 13 onward, and additional equitable relief.
How did the Justice Department respond? DOJ declined to comment on the lawsuit beyond referencing its April social media post, which framed the terminations as a necessary cleanup of personnel deemed responsible for what the department called the weaponization of the FACE Act.
