Former Federal Prosecutor Sues DOJ, Alleging Political Retaliation Over Anti-Abortion Prosecutions

Former federal prosecutor Sunita Doddamani filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department on August 17, alleging she was unlawfully fired in an act of political retaliation for prosecuting anti-abortion activists. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, accuses current DOJ leadership of bypassing civil service protections to purge career attorneys who worked on cases disfavored by the administration.[1]

Doddamani, who served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Michigan, was abruptly dismissed on April 13 while on annual leave. According to the lawsuit, she immediately lost access to department systems and was escorted out of the building without advance notice, due process, or a stated merit-based cause.[1]

The unstated reason for her termination, her legal team argues, was her assignment to the trial team in United States v. Zastrow. In that case, Doddamani helped secure convictions against eight defendants for physically blocking access to a reproductive health clinic in Sterling Heights, Michigan, under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.[1]

The Justice Department has not hidden the connection between the April dismissals and the FACE Act prosecutions. Shortly after the firings, the DOJ posted on social media that it had "terminated the employment of personnel responsible for weaponizing the FACE Act who still remained at the department."[1]

The legal mechanism of the firing sits at the center of the dispute. Federal prosecutors are typically career civil servants shielded by the Civil Service Reform Act, which requires the government to provide a warning and a merit-based justification before termination. Doddamani's lawsuit argues her dismissal bypasses these statutory protections and violates the Administrative Procedure Act.

Beyond statutory violations, the complaint alleges breaches of the First and Fifth Amendments. Doddamani's attorneys argue that the firings represent an unconstitutional coercion of career staff for partisan political purposes, designed to punish employees for the lawful execution of their assigned duties.[1]

The firings occurred just one day before the Justice Department's "Weaponization Working Group"—an initiative created by former Attorney General Pam Bondi—released an 882-page report condemning the Biden administration's enforcement of the FACE Act. The report accused the previous administration of collaborating with abortion rights groups to track anti-abortion activists and selectively prosecuting conservative Christians.[1][2]

Based on a review of 700,000 internal records, the DOJ report claimed that prosecutors sought significantly harsher penalties for anti-abortion defendants. It cited an average requested sentence of 26.8 months for anti-abortion activists, compared to 12.3 months for abortion rights advocates who violated the law.[2]

Defenders of the previous administration's record point out that the cases brought under former Attorney General Merrick Garland were largely successful in court. Judges routinely declined to dismiss the charges, and juries consistently delivered guilty verdicts based on concrete evidence of physical obstruction and property damage.[2]

Doddamani was not the only prosecutor removed during the April sweep. At least three other career Justice Department employees, including Michigan Assistant U.S. Attorney Frances Carlson and Civil Rights Division task force head Sanjay Patel, were fired or placed on administrative leave in connection with their work on FACE Act cases.[1][3]

Current DOJ leadership has defended the personnel changes as a necessary restoration of impartial justice. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stated that the department "will not tolerate a two-tiered system of justice," asserting that the corrective actions were required to ensure federal law is not used as an enforcement arm for special interests.

Doddamani is seeking reinstatement, backpay, and a formal judicial declaration that her constitutional and statutory rights were violated. The lawsuit also notes that she has suffered reputational harm and lost financial opportunities due to the public nature of the department's accusations.[1]

Legal observers warn that the dismissals—and the subsequent public report naming career attorneys—could create a severe chilling effect within the Justice Department. If career prosecutors can be fired for securing lawful convictions that later fall out of political favor, the foundational independence of the federal civil service may be permanently altered.[2]