Case Highlight: Driscoll v. Patel
By Anastasiia Chumachenko ‘28
On September 10, 2025, three former FBI agents filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming they were wrongfully terminated from their positions. The plaintiffs, Brian Driscoll, Steven Jensen, and Spencer Evans, brought the suit against FBI Director Kashyap Patel. Attorney General Pamela Bondi, the Department of Justice, and other federal officials were also named as defendants for their alleged involvement in carrying out the orders. The lawsuit alleges that Mr. Patel carried out the firings based on political pressure from the White House and the Department of Justice. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs were dismissed because of their involvement in investigations related to the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol and the handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
Before beginning his term as FBI Director, Mr. Patel appeared at a Senate confirmation hearing where lawmakers reviewed his qualifications and asked him to swear that he would act fairly and independently, which he agreed to do. After the lawsuit was filed against him, the Senate held an additional oversight hearing to question Mr. Patel about the firings. Since Congress cannot decide the outcome of the lawsuit, such hearings are held to promote transparency and ensure accountability by allowing lawmakers to question officials under oath and make their actions part of the public record.
During this hearing, Senator Cory Booker challenged Mr. Patel directly, saying: “You terminated Driscoll via a letter dated October 8, 2025. And in that letter, you said that you were firing him pursuant to Article 2 of the Constitution… you’re not the president of the United States, so I’m wondering under what authority you were allowed to terminate him.” Patel declined to answer in detail, saying he could not discuss the matter further because it was under litigation. The complaint further claims that the dismissals targeted officials who had taken part in politically sensitive investigations, including the January 6th Capitol attack and the recovery of classified documents from Mar-a-Lago
Beyond the public hearings, the complaint also describes private conversations that allegedly took place before the firings and suggests possible political motives behind them. According to the filing, Mr. Patel told Mr. Driscoll that the dismissals were likely unlawful, but said there was nothing he could do to stop them, because "the FBI tried to put the President in jail and he hasn’t forgotten it.” The complaint also states that during meetings leading up to the firings, Mr. Driscoll was repeatedly questioned about his political affiliations and voting history in the past five elections. According to the filing, these questions came from senior officials, including Attorney General Pamela Bondi, who allegedly asked Driscoll about his past support for President Trump in previous elections.
These events have raised significant constitutional questions at the heart of the lawsuit. The plaintiffs argue that their firings were not only politically motivated, but also that they violated fundamental protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The case centers on whether the government, through FBI Director Kash Patel, violated the plaintiffs’ First and Fifth Amendment rights by firing them for political reasons and denying them the fair procedures guaranteed by law.
One of the key constitutional issues in this case is the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees that “no person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Each of the plaintiffs claims that they had property and liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause. As members of the FBI’s Senior Executive Service, Mr. Driscoll and the others had a property interest in their continued employment with the Bureau, including their salary, health insurance, retirement benefits, and other job-related rights. The complaint alleges that these interests were taken away when the plaintiffs were dismissed without proper procedures, violating both federal employment protections and the Fifth Amendment itself.
The other key constitutional element in this case involves the First Amendment. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all citizens the freedom of speech, expression, and association. It has long been interpreted to protect public employees from being fired solely because of their political beliefs or perceived lack of loyalty to a particular party or ideology. The plaintiffs allege that their terminations were based on the notion that their regular FBI work, such as investigating the January sixth attack on the Capitol, foreign interference in U.S. elections, and the handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, was motivated by political disloyalty to President Trump. Mr. Driscoll and the other plaintiffs held key investigative and supervisory roles within the FBI; Their responsibilities and oath to the Constitution required them to carry out a range of law enforcement duties, including those related to the January sixth, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, foreign election interference, and President Trump’s alleged retention of classified materials. The plaintiffs argue that Mr. Patel’s actions violated their First Amendment rights, damaged their reputations, stripped them of their positions as FBI agents in good standing, and cost them their income, health insurance, and retirement benefits.
Since this case has not yet been decided, the outcome remains uncertain. To get a better sense of how the court might approach its decision, it is helpful to look at Supreme Court precedents that addressed similar disputes.
In Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985), the Supreme Court held that public employees with a property interest in their jobs cannot be fired without due process. The case involved a school security guard who was dismissed without being given a chance to respond to the charges against him, which the Court ruled violated his right to due process. Employees protected by civil service rules or contracts are entitled to notice and a chance to respond before termination, while at-will employees are not. The same principle might apply in Driscoll v. Patel, if the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs. As members of the FBI’s Senior Executive Service, they had a protected property interest in their positions. By firing them abruptly, without notice or a hearing, Patel may have violated their Fifth Amendment rights under the principles established in Loudermill.
Another case that may serve as an example for the Court’s reasoning is Elrod v. Burns (1976). In this case, Richard Elrod, a Democrat, became sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, and fired or threatened to fire Republican employees in the office. Those employees argued that the First Amendment protects their right to belong to the political party of their choice without losing their government jobs. The Supreme Court agreed, holding for the first time that public employees cannot be dismissed solely for their political affiliation. The Court rejected the government’s claim and stated that while high-level policy jobs might require political loyalty, most government employees are professionals and should not lose their jobs just because they belong to a different party. The same principle might apply in Driscoll v. Patel, if the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs. They allege that Mr. Patel dismissed them not for poor performance but because of their perceived political disloyalty, pointing to their involvement in sensitive investigations mentioned earlier in the case. If proven, Patel’s actions could be unlawful under the First Amendment.
If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the decision could set an important precedent for protecting government employees from politically motivated dismissals. It would reaffirm that even high-ranking officials in federal agencies have constitutional rights to due process and political neutrality. Such a ruling could also strengthen safeguards within government institutions, reinforcing federal employees’ abilities to carry out their duties without fear of reprisal, even when those duties involve politically sensitive investigations. Most importantly, it would underscore the principle of separation of powers by clarifying that the executive branch cannot use its authority to interfere with or retaliate against independent law enforcement officials.
On the other hand, the court could rule in favor of Mr. Patel. In that case, it might conclude that there is not enough evidence to prove that the firings were politically motivated or that Mr. Patel acted outside his legal authority as FBI Director. The court could instead determine that the dismissals were made for administrative or performance-based reasons rather than political ones. Given that the current federal judiciary is largely composed of judges appointed by Republican administrations, there is also the possibility that the Court may take a more cautious or deferential approach toward actions taken under President Trump’s administration. Such a ruling would reinforce the government’s discretion in managing senior executive employees, particularly those working in sensitive national security positions. Such a ruling might also reflect a broader view of presidential authority under the unitary executive theory, which emphasizes the President’s constitutional authority to direct and remove officials within the executive branch. Under this view, the independence of agencies like the FBI may be seen as secondary to presidential control, potentially reshaping the balance of power between political leadership and career civil service.
Anastasiia Chumachenko is a freshman majoring in political science.
Sources
CBS News. (2025, September 10). Politics, retribution behind FBI purge, agents allege in new lawsuit. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lawsuit-politics-retribution-behind-fbi-purge-agents-allege/
Democracy Docket. (2025, September 10). Senior FBI agents file lawsuit over White House political purge. Democracy Docket. https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/senior-fbi-agents-lawsuit-white-house-political-purge/
First Amendment Encyclopedia. (2023). Elrod v. Burns (1976). Middle Tennessee State University. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/elrod-v-burns/
Legal Information Institute. (1976). Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976). Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/427/347
Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC). (2024, August). Loudermill rights and due process in public employment. MRSC Insight. https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/august-2024/loudermill-rights
NBC News. (2025, September 10). Former top FBI officials sue, say Kash Patel fired them to stay in Trump’s good graces. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/former-top-fbi-officials-sue-say-kash-patel-fired-stay-trumps-good-gra-rcna230369
Reuters. (2025, September 10). Three former FBI leaders say they were fired for insufficient loyalty to Trump in lawsuit. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/lawsuit-three-former-fbi-leaders-say-they-were-fired-insufficient-loyalty-2025-09-10/
The Guardian. (2025, September 10). FBI director Kash Patel facing lawsuit over wrongful terminations and political influence. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/10/fbi-kash-patel-lawsuit
The Washington Post. (2025, September 10). Trump FBI firings lawsuit alleges political loyalty tests at the Bureau. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/09/10/trump-fbi-fired-lawsuit-loyalty/
The Washington Post. (2025, October 2). ADL, FBI director Kash Patel sever ties amid conservative backlash. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/10/02/adl-fbi-patel-comey/
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. (2025, October 8). Senate hearing on FBI Director Kash Patel [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfKC2CMKW78
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. (2025, September 10). Driscoll v. Patel complaint. DocumentCloud. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26088070-driscoll-complaint
