Fired Fed Prosecutor Sues DOJ: ‘Unlawful Termination’ Over FACE Act
Former Federal Prosecutor Sues Justice Department Over Firing Linked to Abortion Clinic Case
What Happened in Simple Terms
Imagine you’re a lawyer working for the government. Your boss tells you to work on a specific case. You do your job well — you even help win the case. Then, a new boss comes in, doesn’t like that case for political reasons, and fires you the very next day. That’s basically what Sunita Doddamani says happened to her.
Who Is Sunita Doddamani?
- Former job: Assistant U.S. Attorney (a federal prosecutor) in the Eastern District of Michigan
- Type of work: Mostly civil cases, but also some criminal cases
- Key case: In 2023, she helped prosecute United States v. Zastrow — a case where 8 people were convicted of blocking access to an abortion clinic
- What happened: Fired in April 2025, along with at least two other career prosecutors
The Timeline: What Happened and When
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 2025 | Doddamani and at least 2 other prosecutors fired |
| Same day | Doddamani lost phone/email access immediately and was escorted out of the building |
| Same day | U.S. Attorney Jerome Gorgon announced firings for "misconduct" — but said he had no prior knowledge of the firings or reasons |
| Next day | Justice Department released a 900-page report claiming the Biden-era DOJ "improperly targeted anti-abortion activists" |
| August 2025 | Doddamani filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia |
What Is the FACE Act? (Explained Simply)
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act
- Passed by Congress in 1994
- Purpose: Stop threats, intimidation, and blockades at reproductive health clinics
- What it bans: Physically blocking someone from entering a clinic
- Penalties:
- First-time / nonviolent = misdemeanor
- Repeat offenses or causing injury/death = felony
Why Doddamani Says Her Firing Was Illegal
Her lawsuit argues the firing was political retaliation — punishment for doing a job the new administration didn’t like. She says it violates:
- Civil Service Reform Act — protects career employees from political firings
- Administrative Procedure Act — requires fair process for government actions
- First Amendment — freedom of speech/association (doing her job isn’t a political act)
- Fifth Amendment — due process (fired without notice or chance to respond)
Key Quote from the Lawsuit:
"Unlawful terminations are a frequent tool of the Trump administration to achieve its political aims. DOJ officials have repeatedly attempted to justify firings… by portraying the employees targeted as culpable for the now-disfavored cases they had been assigned."
What the Justice Department Says
The DOJ posted on X (formerly Twitter):
"DOJ has terminated the employment of personnel responsible for weaponizing the FACE Act who still remained at the department."
They claim the prosecutors misused the law for political purposes — but Doddamani’s lawyers say she was just following orders from her superiors.
The Big Picture: Political Battle Over the FACE Act
Under the Biden Administration
- Prosecuted many anti-abortion activists under the FACE Act
- Also prosecuted some abortion-rights activists (e.g., at crisis pregnancy centers) — but far fewer cases
Under the Trump Administration (Second Term)
- Pardoned many FACE Act defendants convicted under Biden
- Dismissed several pending FACE Act cases
- Ordered prosecutors to stop future FACE Act investigations
- But: Allowed remaining cases against abortion-rights activists to continue (one got 120 days in prison in March 2025)
The Controversial 900-Page DOJ Report
Released the day after the firings, this report came from a new group called the Weaponization Working Group (created by former Attorney General Pam Bondi).
Doddamani’s Lawsuit Criticizes the Report For:
- Making unsubstantiated accusations
- Revealing internal DOJ communications normally kept private
- Bypassing the Office of Inspector General (OIG) — the normal watchdog for DOJ misconduct
- Mischaracterizing defendants as "peaceful, pro-life" when they actually:
- Engaged in firebombing and arson
- Ran coordinated blockades preventing patients from entering clinics
- Made threats of violence
Who Is Being Sued?
The lawsuit names these defendants:
- Attorney General Todd Blanche
- Jerome Gorgon — U.S. Attorney for Eastern District of Michigan
- Francey Hakes — Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys
- Several federal agencies and offices
What Doddamani Says She Lost
- Current and future job opportunities
- Financial harm
- Reputational damage
Summary
- Sunita Doddamani, a career federal prosecutor, was fired suddenly in April 2025.
- She had worked on a successful FACE Act prosecution (8 convictions) at her supervisors’ direction.
- Her firing came one day before a DOJ report accused the Biden administration of misusing the FACE Act.
- She sued the Justice Department, claiming political retaliation violating multiple laws and the Constitution.
- The case highlights a deep political fight over how the FACE Act is enforced — and whether career prosecutors can be fired for doing their jobs.
FAQ
What is the FACE Act, and why does it matter?
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (1994) makes it a federal crime to block access to reproductive health clinics. It matters because it’s become a political flashpoint — different administrations enforce it very differently.
Was Doddamani fired for poor performance?
No. The lawsuit says she was a career prosecutor doing her assigned job. The U.S. Attorney who announced her firing admitted he didn’t know why she was fired.
Can the president fire federal prosecutors for political reasons?
Not career prosecutors. Political appointees (like U.S. Attorneys) can be replaced, but career civil servants like Doddamani have legal protections against political firings.
What does "weaponizing the FACE Act" mean?
The Trump DOJ claims the Biden DOJ used the law unfairly against conservatives. Critics say the Biden DOJ just enforced the law as written — and that the Trump DOJ is now ignoring it selectively.
What happens next in the lawsuit?
The case is in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. A judge will decide if Doddamani’s rights were violated. It could take months or years — and may set a precedent for protecting career civil servants from political purges.
Bottom Line: This isn’t just about one lawyer. It’s about whether government employees can do their jobs without fear of being fired when the political winds change.