Career Prosecutor Alleges Retaliatory Firing Over 8 FACE Act Cases

HR leaders across sectors will recognize the core issue: an employee terminated without documented cause after a change in organizational priorities, with no notice or due process. The federal government's treatment of career prosecutors offers a high-stakes case study in retaliation and procedural fairness for employees whose work becomes politically disfavored.

The latest legal challenge to the Trump administration's purge of career Justice Department personnel comes from Sunita Doddamani, a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Michigan. Doddamani was dismissed on April 13, 2026, according to her lawsuit, without advance notice, due process, or stated cause. Her complaint alleges the firing was politically motivated and retaliatory, and that it violated the Civil Service Reform Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the First and Fifth Amendments. The unstated reason, she contends, was her work prosecuting eight anti-abortion activists under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act, which prohibits intentionally interfering with reproductive health care services. At least two other prosecutors who had worked FACE Act cases lost their jobs the same day, and the Justice Department publicly announced it had terminated personnel responsible for 'weaponizing' the FACE Act who still remained at the department. A day later, on April 14, 2026, DOJ released a report accusing the Biden administration of weaponizing the FACE Act against anti-abortion activists.

“

The latest legal challenge to the Trump administration's purge of career Justice Department personnel comes from Sunita Doddamani, a former assistant U.S.

The case is significant because it sits at the intersection of federal employment law, prosecutorial independence, and executive branch authority. Doddamani's lawsuit argues that unlawful terminations have become a frequent tool of the Trump administration to achieve its political aims, and that DOJ officials have repeatedly justified firings and workforce reductions by portraying targeted employees as culpable for the now-disfavored cases they had been assigned. The complaint frames the firing not as an ordinary personnel action but as punishment for carrying out a lawful enforcement duty under a statute that the new administration has repudiated. This raises constitutional questions about whether career prosecutors can be removed for their professional work when that work is disfavored by current political leadership.

From a legal doctrine perspective, the case tests the scope of protections available to federal employees who are not in traditional competitive service positions. Assistant U.S. attorneys occupy a somewhat ambiguous status: they are career employees but serve in positions that may carry limited removal protections. The Civil Service Reform Act generally requires that certain adverse personnel actions be taken only for cause and with procedural safeguards, yet its application to U.S. attorneys' offices has long been contested. The Administrative Procedure Act claim invites a court to scrutinize whether the firing was arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law. The First Amendment claim asserts retaliation for speech or association, while the Fifth Amendment due process claim suggests a protected property interest in continued public employment. If courts find that such firings violate these protections, the decision could establish a precedent limiting the executive branch's ability to remove career attorneys based on the cases they have worked.