Fired Prosecutor Sues DOJ, Says She Was Punished for Convicting Anti-Abortion Activists

Sunita Doddamani, a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Michigan, filed a lawsuit Monday alleging she was unlawfully and retaliatorily fired from the Justice Department for her role prosecuting United States v. Zastrow, a 2023 case that convicted eight anti-abortion activists in Sterling Heights, Michigan, of FACE Act and federal civil rights conspiracy violations. Doddamani says she was dismissed on April 13 without advance notice, due process or stated cause, and that the firing violated the Civil Service Reform Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the First and Fifth Amendments [1, 2].

The lawsuit notes that at least two other prosecutors who worked FACE Act cases were fired the same day, and that the department publicly announced it had “terminated the employment of personnel responsible for weaponizing the FACE Act who still remained at the department.” A day later, DOJ released a report accusing the Biden administration of weaponizing the FACE Act against anti-abortion activists [3].

Why It Sucks:

Career DOJ Prosecutors

• Political loyalty tests replace merit protections. Civil service advocates say firing career attorneys without cause for cases they were assigned to work sends a chilling signal that political alignment now outweighs job performance at Justice [1, 2].
• No due process before termination. The lawsuit alleges Doddamani received no advance notice or stated cause, which current and former DOJ employees say strips away basic protections meant to insulate career staff from political retaliation [1].
• A pattern, not an isolated incident. With multiple FACE Act prosecutors dismissed the same day, career staff say it looks less like individual accountability and more like a coordinated purge tied to a single case outcome [2, 3].

Anti-Abortion Activists

• Vindication feels incomplete. Pro-life advocates who welcomed DOJ’s report accusing the Biden administration of weaponizing the FACE Act note their underlying convictions from the Zastrow case still stand despite the department’s own findings [3].
• Years of prosecution can’t be undone by a firing. Activists argue that removing the prosecutors involved does nothing to reverse the trial outcome or restore what they see as years lost to a politically motivated case [3].
• Slow-moving accountability breeds distrust. Supporters of the activists say it took years and a change in administration for DOJ to acknowledge what they’d argued all along, fueling skepticism that future enforcement will be any more even-handed [3].

Abortion-Rights and Clinic-Access Advocates

• Clinic protections look weaker. Reproductive rights groups warn that purging prosecutors who successfully brought FACE Act cases signals reduced enforcement appetite for laws protecting patients and staff from blockades [1, 3].
• A deterrent effect gets erased. Advocates argue that convictions like the one in Zastrow were meant to discourage clinic obstruction, and that punishing the prosecutors who won it could embolden future blockades [3].
• The message to future targets is clear. Clinic-access groups say the firings tell anyone facing a FACE Act charge that political pressure, not the law, may ultimately decide the outcome [2, 3].

Sources & Citations:

[1] NPR: Former federal prosecutor sues DOJ for ‘unlawful and retaliatory’ firing
[2] CBS News: Former federal prosecutor fired over FACE Act case sues DOJ for unlawful termination
[3] Detroit News: Ex-federal prosecutor sues DOJ, argues firing tied to abortion case