Justice Connection was proud to stand up for our former colleagues by filing amicus briefs in two cases that could determine the administration’s ability to fire FBI employees without due process on the basis of perceived political affiliation. As the Associated Press reported, our briefs warn that “a ‘politicized’ FBI could turn against citizens because of their speech, association or perceived disloyalty.”
The cases — Doe v. Patel and Garman v. Patel — were brought by former FBI employees who were fired under Article II authority for working on cases disfavored by this administration.
The plaintiffs in Doe had worked in supporting and administrative capacities on the Arctic Frost investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election, which culminated in the 2023 indictment of then-former President Donald Trump. The two plaintiffs were fired without due process in late 2025 by FBI Director Kash Patel for participating in alleged “political weaponization of the government.”
Similarly, the plaintiffs in Garman brought a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of over 50 FBI employees who were or will be fired based on their perceived political affiliation, without being afforded due process. The three named plaintiffs were fired for having worked on Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigations and accused of “weaponizing” their government positions.
In our amicus briefs, Justice Connection and 38 former FBI personnel argue that the firings were not based on merit or misconduct, but “driven by political retribution and an effort to reshape the Bureau into an instrument of partisan control.”
We filed the briefs in response to the FBI and DOJ’s motion to dismiss the lawsuits on procedural grounds.
Since entering office this administration has fired more than 50 FBI employees because of the cases they worked, for disagreeing with Bureau leadership, or for other illegal reasons.
“If personnel may be fired, threatened, or sidelined because they participated in investigations later deemed politically inconvenient, the result will be a workforce chilled into compliance, deterred from pursuing sensitive matters, barred from carrying out long-term and complex investigations, and selected based on loyalty rather than judgment,” the briefs state. “Such a Bureau cannot effectively investigate crime, ensure public safety, or maintain public confidence in the evenhanded enforcement of the law.”
We want to thank WilmerHale for their excellent representation in these cases.
