Filed Date: Dec. 8, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
In the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd, tensions rose across the nation as civilians sought to end police brutality. On June 4, 2020, twenty-two Special Agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) were patrolling the D.C. area where a large crowd of indignant individuals gathered. The crowd was yelling, chanting, waving banners, and throwing objects. The Plaintiffs, now-former FBI Special Agents who were present that day, wanted to abide by the FBI’s Use of Force policy and not unnecessarily escalate the situation. However, the Plaintiffs were also not sufficiently equipped to handle the civil unrest as they lacked riot shields, gas masks, and helmets. Thus, the Plaintiffs started kneeling to de-escalate the situation, which ended up being successful. After the incident, the FBI and Department of Justice determined that these actions were consistent with FBI policy and there was no misconduct by the Plaintiffs.
While the FBI and DOJ made it explicitly clear that the Plaintiffs would not face disciplinary consequences for the June 4th de-escalation, that changed when Kashyap Patel became the Director of the FBI on February 21, 2025, immediately, he began working to terminate all of the agents who kneeled, including the Plaintiffs. The FBI conducted an internal investigation in June 2025, and on September 26, 2025, the Plaintiffs and their colleagues received letters of termination. The letters reflected no individualized assessments for each plaintiff, but they said that the Plaintiffs and their colleagues were terminated for “unprofessional conduct and a lack of impartiality in carrying out duties, leading to the political weaponization of the government.” Thus, on December 8, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Patel, the FBI, Attorney General Pamela Bondi, the Department of Justice, and the Executive Office of the President (Defendants). The Plaintiffs filed their complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and the case was assigned to Chief Judge James Boasberg. The Plaintiffs are represented by the Washington Litigation Group, but Plaintiff Jane Doe 6 is represented by John Kuchta Law, PLLC. This is an individual action.
In their complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged violations of the First and Fifth Amendments. For the First Amendment freedom of association claim, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants discharged them for not being supporters of the political party in power and President Donald Trump. They argued that while Patel praised the FBI agents from the January 6th insurrection in the U.S. Capitol, he was retaliating against Plaintiffs because they might not politically support Trump. The Plaintiffs also raised three claims under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. First, the Plaintiffs alleged a due process-property violation. They argued that government employees have property interests because the government has “fostered rules and understandings” whereby employees believe that they will only lose their jobs for specified reasons. The Plaintiffs claimed they lived their lives assuming they would not be discharged for the June 4th incident and made critical life decisions, such as not resigning, because of this assumption. Second, the Plaintiffs alleged a due process-liberty violation, arguing that the Defendants’ public statements accusing the Plaintiffs of “unprofessional conduct,” “a lack of impartiality,” and “political weaponization of the government” were damaging to their professional reputations. Third, the Plaintiffs alleged a substantive due process violation, arguing that the Defendants abused government power and “shocked the conscience” of notions of fairness.
Separately, Plaintiff Jane Doe 5 brought due process claims because of her role as an FBI Senior Executive Service Agent (SES). She alleged that her role required that she receive a hearing before her final termination, and that the lack of a 30-day notice was a separation of powers violation and the Defendants were acting ultra vires.
The Plaintiffs requested equitable relief, declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202), mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. §1361, and any other appropriate relief. The Plaintiffs requested a writ of mandamus commanding Defendants to return Plaintiffs to their respective offices and a declaration that their constitutional rights were violated.
On February 6, 2026, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim. The Defendants argued that the same First Amendment protections do not apply to public employees performing their employment responsibilities, which the Plaintiffs were doing. The Defendants also moved to dismiss the Fifth Amendment claims, arguing that the property interest, reputation, and substantive due process claims were too abstract and factually unsupported. The Defendants also moved to dismiss Jane Doe 5’s claims, arguing that Article II gives the Executive the power to remove any inferior officer, and Doe was still subject to unrestricted approval. Moreover, the Defendants argued that Doe’s ultra vires claim was unfounded because there was no statutory provision requiring SES employees to have a hearing before their termination.
On February 27, 2026, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint to include extensive detail about FBI policies protecting employees from political coercion, especially non-probationary employees like Jane Doe 5. Because of the amended complaint, the court dismissed the Defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot on February 27, 2026.
On March 4, 2026, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs amended complaint. Defendants alleged that Plaintiffs failed to state a viable claim on any of their legal theories of the case.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Ameya Kamani (3/4/2026)
Nick Martire (3/6/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72004388/parties/does-v-patel/
McFadden, Trevor Neil (District of Columbia)
Dohrmann, Mary Lyle (District of Columbia)
Kuchta, John David (District of Columbia)
Vaden, Andrew (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72004388/does-v-patel/
Last updated April 20, 2026, 3:23 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 8, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The Plaintiffs are anonymous former FBI agents who were present at the June 4, 2020 BLM protests in D.C.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:25-cv-04258
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Reinstatement (job, contract, grant, etc.)
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority:
Case Summary of Does v. Patel, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47490/ (last updated 3/6/2026).