Filed Date: April 8, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case alleged political interference in the federal civil service. On April 8, 2025, three anonymous career civil servants employed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins. The presiding judge has not been publicly identified. Represented by private counsel, the employees alleged that they were placed on administrative leave due to their previous involvement in Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) initiatives even though they had not performed DEIA-related functions in months. At the time of the filing, they were on administrative leave for over 70 days.
The complaint alleged violations of the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The employees asserted that Secretary Rollins engaged in political discrimination, infringing on their rights to free speech and association, and denying them equal protection and due process under the law. They argued that the agency failed to follow required procedural safeguards such as providing adequate notice, an opportunity to respond, and a fair investigation. The employees contended they were targeted because they were perceived to hold political views differing from those of Secretary Rollins and her allies.
The employees sought injunctive relief to be reinstated to their positions, declaratory relief affirming the unlawfulness of the USDA's actions, compensatory damages for lost wages and emotional distress, and punitive damages to deter future misconduct.
On April 9, 2025, the court issued a notice of error regarding the initial complaint and directed the plaintiffs to file a Notice of Errata with the corrected information by the close of business that day. There is nothing in the docket to indicate that the plaintiffs corrected the complaint by that deadline. On September 11, 2025, however, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order that denied the plaintiffs' motion to file their complaint with pseudonyms. The court ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint using their real names within fourteen days; otherwise, the clerk is directed to terminate the case. As of October 8, the plaintiffs had not filed an amendment complaint.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Victoria Tan (5/28/2025)
Nicole Brigstock (10/8/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69862295/parties/doe-v-rollins/
Branch, David A. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69862295/doe-v-rollins/
Last updated Nov. 11, 2025, 11:20 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 8, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Anonymous civil servants employed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
U.S. Department of Agriculture (- United States (national) -), Federal
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:25-cv-01066
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority: