Former Federal Prosecutor Sues Justice Department Over Firing Tied to Abortion Clinic Cases
A former federal prosecutor in Michigan sued the U.S. Justice Department on August 17, 2026, saying the department fired her for political reasons after she prosecuted anti-abortion activists under a federal law that protects access to abortion clinics.
Sunita Doddamani worked as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Michigan. She was fired on April 13 without advance notice or a stated reason, according to her lawsuit, filed in federal court. The suit calls the firing "politically motivated and retaliatory" and says it violated several laws and constitutional protections, including the Civil Service Reform Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the First and Fifth Amendments. The Civil Service Reform Act is a law meant to protect career government employees from being fired for political reasons. The Administrative Procedure Act sets rules for how federal agencies must act. Seven defendants are named, 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 under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, known as the FACE Act. Congress passed the law in the early 1990s to prohibit intentionally interfering with reproductive health care services, including abortions. Her complaint says 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 said publicly 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 firings, the department released a report accusing the Biden administration of using the FACE Act improperly against anti-abortion activists.
The firings followed a broader shift in policy. Early in President Trump's second term, the Justice Department said it would no longer enforce FACE Act violations except in extraordinary cases, such as those involving death or serious property damage. Trump also pardoned 23 people convicted under the law.
Doddamani's lawsuit asks a court to declare that her rights were violated, to order the government to reinstate her with backpay, and to provide other relief.
Her case is the latest in a series of legal challenges 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 — he served as U.S. attorney for 54 minutes. Rogoff sued over his termination, asking a court to declare the firing unlawful and to rule 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 prosecutor named Rosenzweig filed a separate lawsuit in federal court in Miami, where he had worked for five years, seeking reinstatement to his Justice Department job (ABC News).
Former federal prosecutor Michael Gordon, who worked on January 6 Capitol attack cases, led an effort by fired Justice Department employees to sue the Trump administration over their terminations. A separate lawsuit against Attorney General Pam Bondi said a department official identified as Hartman was "the primary official handling public affairs work specific to the government's prosecution" of January 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 pardons of those convicted under it, and the 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 sets Doddamani's complaint apart from the earlier suits is its legal framing: rather than challenging her removal on procedural grounds alone, the complaint ties her firing directly to specific cases she prosecuted and invokes civil service protections designed to shield line attorneys from political retribution. The Civil Service Reform Act claim, in particular, raises the question of whether enforcing or declining to enforce a specific federal law 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.
