President Donald Trump speaks in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House after an unspecified threat at the annual White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in Washington, Saturday, April 25, 2026, as acting Attorney General Todd Blanche looks on (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
A federal prosecutor fired by the Trump administration has filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C., federal court alleging she was retaliated against "based on her perceived political affiliation and beliefs."
In April 2026, Sunita Doddamani was "abruptly fired" by way of a cursory email sent by then-acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, according to her 41-page complaint filed Monday. The lawsuit alleges this personnel action came "without any advance notice, cause for her termination, or due process."
The specific message given by Blanche was that she was out of her job in the Eastern District of Michigan "pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States."
Now, Doddamani says the "unstated reason" for her termination was due to her role in prosecuting a lone case in which several people were tried for blocking access to abortion clinics under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrance (FACE) Act during the Biden administration.
The plaintiff says the government was never shy about her firing.
"At least two other career prosecutors who had worked on FACE Act prosecutions during the Biden Administration were fired the same day as Ms. Doddamani," the lawsuit reads. "On the day of those firings, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) publicly announced that it had 'terminated the employment of personnel responsible for weaponizing the FACE Act who still remained at the department.'"
Doddamani says such a forced departure runs afoul of federal laws like the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), as well as the First and Fifth Amendments.
And, in any event, the plaintiff suggests the DOJ got it all wrong.
"The First Amendment's restrictions on terminations based on partisan affiliation apply even when the government acts based on an incorrect perception of an employee's politics," the lawsuit goes on. "Defendants terminated Ms. Doddamani's employment based solely on her participation in the United States v. Zastrow prosecution, which formed their perception that she is politically affiliated with opponents of President Trump and the Trump Administration and with the pro-choice movement and that she harbors anti-Christian and pro-abortion political beliefs."
Citing precedent, the plaintiff says, however, that her actual politics are ultimately immaterial because the "government's 'motive' is what triggers First Amendment protections in this context, not 'an employee's actual constitutional rights.'"
Doddamani's complaint makes much of the fact that she was merely doing her job when prosecuting anti-abortion activists under the FACE Act — and notes that such prosecutions under the statutes even occurred during the first Trump administration.
"Ms. Doddamani's role in United States v. Zastrow was carried out in accordance with her professional and ethical obligations, and it was carried out at the direction and under the supervision of the [U.S. Attorney's Office] leadership that had assigned her to the trial team," the complaint continues.
The filing criticizes the Trump administration for a series of other politically motivated firings.
"Unlawful terminations are a frequent tool of the Trump Administration to achieve its political aims," the lawsuit goes on. "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."
The lawsuit concedes that the typical method for contesting her dismissal would be to seek administrative recourse through the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). But that course of action "would be futile," Doddamani says, because the MSPB is "stacked with President Trump's co-partisans who understandably fear removal from office if they second-guess Defendants' decision."
The plaintiff is requesting a declaratory judgment that in firing her the government violated the law and Constitution, reinstatement, back pay, "other monetary" relief, and attorneys fees.
Doddamani is also seeking a court order that would "correct any records indicating that Ms. Doddamani committed misconduct or that she was removed from the federal service under Article II."
Comments