storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
Pamela Bondi is being sued in federal court for personally signing the unlawful terminations of three veteran Department of Justice employees. These terminations were carried out with no stated cause, no prior notice, and no due process. The employees were not political appointees. They were career civil servants with spotless records, decades of experience, and consistent top performance reviews.
One was Michael Gordon, an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Florida who had also prosecuted high-profile January 6th defendants including Richard Barnett, Eric Munchel, and Ray Epps. One was Patricia Hartman, a Supervisory Public Affairs Specialist who had worked for DOJ, the FBI, and the DEA, and who handled media communications for the Capitol riot investigations. One was Joseph Tirrell, Director of DOJ’s Ethics Office and a Navy veteran with nearly 20 years of civil service.
All three received one-page memos signed by Bondi informing them they were terminated effective immediately. The only justification given in these memos was a reference to Article II of the Constitution and unspecified federal laws. No allegations of misconduct were made. None of the required protections under federal civil service law were followed. These protections include advance notice, a statement of cause, an opportunity to respond, representation rights, and the ability to challenge the decision before a neutral body. For Tirrell, the protections were even stronger due to his Senior Executive Service status and veteran status, both of which entitle him to additional legal safeguards.
The plaintiffs argue that their terminations were politically motivated retaliation for their involvement in politically sensitive investigations and oversight. They also argue that the administration has effectively shut down the normal appeal system by neutralizing the Merit Systems Protection Board, leaving them no option but to sue directly in federal court. The Board currently lacks a quorum, and the administration has argued that the Board does not have jurisdiction to review these terminations anyway, further undermining its function.
The complaint accuses Bondi and DOJ of violating the Administrative Procedure Act, acting outside their legal authority, and violating the Fifth Amendment by depriving the plaintiffs of their employment and damaging their reputations without due process. The plaintiffs are seeking reinstatement, back pay, a public clearing of their names, and a court ruling that their firings were illegal. If the court agrees, it would not only reinstate these individuals but could set precedent that blocks the administration from continuing this pattern.
The lawsuit paints Bondi as the executor of a broader political purge aimed at dismantling neutral oversight inside DOJ. Her signature is on each termination memo. Her legal argument depends entirely on the claim that Article II powers allow the president and attorney general to fire career civil servants without cause. If that argument fails in court, Bondi’s actions will be declared illegal. She could be forced to testify, turn over internal communications, and explain the real motives behind these terminations.
The reputational damage would be immediate. Her credibility as attorney general would be compromised. Her future in law, politics, or corporate leadership would take a hit. This case is not just about employment law. It is about whether the federal government can operate as a neutral institution or whether it has been turned into a tool of partisan enforcement.
