Former Federal Prosecutor Sues Justice Department Over FACE Act Firing
Sunita Doddamani, a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Michigan, sued the U.S. Justice Department on August 17, 2026, alleging she was unlawfully dismissed for political reasons tied to her prosecution of anti-abortion activists under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
Doddamani was fired on April 13 without advance notice, due process, or cause, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court. Her complaint alleges the termination was "politically motivated and retaliatory" and violated the Civil Service Reform Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the First and Fifth Amendments. The complaint names seven defendants, including Attorney General Todd Blanche and the Justice Department (NPR).
At the center of the dispute is Doddamani's work prosecuting eight anti-abortion activists for violating the FACE Act, a federal statute dating to the early 1990s that prohibits intentionally interfering with reproductive health care services, including abortions. The complaint alleges that this prosecution was the "unstated reason" for her firing. At least two other prosecutors who worked on FACE Act cases lost their jobs the same day.
The Justice Department publicly announced it had "terminated the employment of personnel responsible for weaponizing the FACE Act who still remained at the department," according to language cited in the complaint. A day after the terminations, the department released a report accusing the Biden administration of weaponizing the FACE Act against anti-abortion activists.
The terminations followed a broader policy shift. Early in President Trump's second term, the Justice Department said it would no longer enforce FACE Act violations except in extraordinary circumstances, such as cases involving death or serious property damage. Trump also pardoned 23 people convicted under the statute.
Doddamani's lawsuit seeks a declaration that her rights were violated, an order requiring the government to reinstate her with backpay, and other relief.
Her case is the latest in a series of legal challenges brought by career prosecutors removed during the Trump administration's second term. Roger Rogoff, the top federal prosecutor in Seattle, was fired by the White House less than an hour after being sworn in, having served as U.S. attorney for 54 minutes. Rogoff sued over his termination, seeking a court order declaring that his firing "was unlawful and is void" and that he at least temporarily remains a U.S. attorney. He was the first U.S. attorney to sue over being removed by the Trump administration (NBC News, AP).
The Trump administration also fired several U.S. attorneys who had been appointed by federal judges rather than through the standard political appointment process. A fired federal prosecutor named Rosenzweig filed a separate lawsuit in federal court in Miami, where he had worked as a federal prosecutor for five years, seeking reinstatement to his Justice Department job (ABC News).
Former federal prosecutor Michael Gordon, who worked on Jan. 6 Capitol attack cases, led an effort by fired DOJ employees to sue the Trump administration, alleging wrongful termination. A separate lawsuit against Attorney General Pam Bondi alleged that a DOJ official identified as Hartman was "the primary official handling public affairs work specific to the government's prosecution" of Jan. 6 cases (The Hill, Reuters).
The broader context here is a Justice Department undergoing a systemic reshaping of its prosecutorial priorities and personnel. The FACE Act policy reversal, the mass pardons of those convicted under it, and the targeted dismissal of line prosecutors who enforced it point to a coordinated effort to align career staffing with the administration's stated legal-policy preferences. What distinguishes Doddamani's complaint from the earlier suits is its statutory framing: rather than challenging removal on procedural grounds alone, the complaint ties her firing directly to specific prosecutorial work product and invokes civil service protections designed to insulate line attorneys from political retribution. The Civil Service Reform Act claim, in particular, puts at issue whether enforcing or declining to enforce a specific federal statute can serve as a lawful basis for removing a career prosecutor. If the court reaches the merits, the case could test the boundary between a president's authority to set enforcement priorities and the protections Congress has extended to non-political Justice Department employees.
