Protecting Nonpartisan Civil Servants from Illegal Retaliation (Does/Garman v. Patel)

FBI agents like Jamie Garman, Blaire Toleman and Michelle Ball were exemplary public servants whose careers exemplified the FBI’s motto of “Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity.” These agents (and more than 50 others) were assigned to participate in the FBI’s investigation of attempts to subvert the 2020 presidential election. All these agents were summarily fired in the fall of 2025.

FBI Director Kash Patel gave no meaningful explanation for the firings. He accused the agents of “weaponizing” government by investigating then-former President Donald Trump.  

The FBI’s investigation into the scheme to prevent certification of the 2020 election used ordinary investigative methods. And the investigation sought to uphold a basic premise of American democracy: Voters decide who governs, and losing politicians cannot override their choice.

It is clear that the FBI agents were fired not because of any official misconduct, but because they are seen as insufficiently loyal to the president and his baseless denial of the 2020 election results.

The fired FBI agents sued the federal government seeking reinstatement to their positions. Representing leading First Amendment scholars, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and the Yale Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic filed an amicus brief in support of the agents’ case.

Our amicus brief argues that FBI agents, like all nonpartisan civil servants, have a First Amendment right to free political expression. Civil servants cannot be fired because they are actually (or even just perceived to be) not politically supportive of the president, as long as they are able to do their job effectively.  

Campaign Legal Center’s brief explains that the First Amendment protects FBI agents from firings based on partisan retaliation. Otherwise, the government could use public employment to indirectly coerce free speech and association, critical constitutional freedoms belonging to every American.  

The government cannot simply call any assignment that a civil servant performed during a previous administration “weaponization” and be given free rein to fire whomever they deem political opponents. Our Constitution demands more.  

Our brief urges the district court to closely scrutinize the government’s claims in light of statements showing the administration’s political motives and the lack of detailed explanation or process given to the agents.  

Campaign Legal Center and Yale’s brief also emphasizes that allowing politically motivated firings of law enforcement officials is dangerous to the rule of law. Law enforcement should be guided by the facts and law, not political fear or favor. It is important to prevent the electoral subversion attempted on January 6, 2021, from happening again. Campaign Legal Center successfully urged Congress to update the Electoral Count Act to eliminate gaps and ambiguities that bad actors sought to exploit in the certification of the 2020 results. And CLC continues to fight for safeguards to ensure our elections are safe, secure and accessible for American voters.

Pushing back against politically motivated firings of FBI agents who investigated the attempted conspiracy on January 6 is another important aspect of protecting our democracy.