DOJ Fires Prosecutor for FACE Act Case, Defends Proud Boys Convictions

Prosecutor Fired for FACE Act Case, Claims Retaliation

A career prosecutor, Sita Dammani, was fired from her position as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Michigan via email while on vacation. She had been assigned to a FACE Act case, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

The FACE Act makes it a crime to obstruct or intimidate people accessing reproductive health services. Dammani stated she was a probationary employee and joined the trial team shortly before the indictment, not involved in the initial investigation or decision-making.

Dammani described the firing as abrupt and without clear explanation, receiving a termination letter signed by Todd Blanch. She has never been accused of misconduct and received an outstanding performance rating on the case.

This action is part of a larger pattern, according to co-host Mary McCord, involving dozens of prosecutors receiving similar “Article 2” letters, which allow for termination without standard civil service protections. These firings appear to target cases or individuals the current administration disagrees with, rather than actual misconduct.

FACE Act Prosecution Detailed

The case Dammani prosecuted involved seven defendants charged with FACE Act violations and conspiracy. They allegedly blockaded the entrance to a clinic in Sterling Heights, Michigan, that provided abortions, ultrasounds, and birth control.

The defendants formed a human chain, blocking access for patients and employees. One victim testified about being unable to access the clinic for a necessary procedure due to fetal abnormalities.

After weeks of testimony, the jury convicted all seven defendants. Dammani explained that the FACE Act statute directly addresses such physical obstructions intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with individuals seeking reproductive healthcare. The conviction aligned with the statutory language and the facts presented to the jury.

Department of Justice Report and Pardons Raise Concerns

The firings come amidst a nearly 900-page Department of Justice report alleging bias by prosecutors in the Civil Rights Division and U.S. Attorney’s Offices regarding FACE Act claims. Dammani believes her termination is linked to this report and the administration’s stance on the FACE Act. She noted that in January 2025, President Trump pardoned 24 FACE Act defendants, including those in the case she prosecuted, shortly after taking office.

This move, along with the establishment of an anti-Christian bias task force, suggested to Dammani that her job might be in jeopardy. She described the pardons as a “horrible” revelation that her trial team had to inform the victim about before she saw it in the news. Dammani feels her firing is a direct contradiction to the department’s stated goals of ending “weaponization” and disrespects the findings of Congress and juries.

DOJ Seeks to Vacate Proud Boys and Oathkeepers Convictions

In a separate development, the Department of Justice has filed a motion with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the convictions of Proud Boys and Oathkeepers members.

These individuals were convicted of crimes related to their actions, including conspiracy. The government’s motion, unopposed by the defendants, argues it is not in the interest of justice to continue prosecuting these cases, especially since their sentences were commuted to time served.

Co-host Mary McCord noted that this action aligns with a narrative that January 6th was a peaceful protest. She questioned whether the circuit court and the district court have discretion to deny the government’s request. Legal experts suggest that while statutes allow courts to vacate judgments as just under the circumstances, the judiciary has an interest in maintaining final judgments after conviction and sentencing.

Legal Battle Over Court Discretion

The statute governing appeals allows the court to “affirm, modify, vacate, set aside or reverse any judgment as may be just under the circumstances.” However, the Supreme Court has not definitively defined this standard. Similarly, Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires “leave of court” for the government to dismiss an indictment, meaning courts can deny such requests.

This situation differs from previous cases where prosecutorial discretion was more broadly accepted. Legal analysis suggests that at the final judgment stage, the judiciary’s role in upholding convictions becomes a significant factor. A prior D.C.

Circuit decision, U.S. v. Thorp, indicated that appellate courts, not district courts, should handle vacating convictions at this stage, highlighting the separation of powers and the judiciary’s independent interest.

Looking Ahead

The coming weeks will reveal how the D.C. Circuit and potentially the district courts will rule on the DOJ’s motions.

The outcome could signal the administration’s approach to past convictions and the independence of the judiciary. The case of Sita Dammani also raises questions about accountability within the Department of Justice and the protection of federal employees performing their duties.

Source: Friends and Foes: The Fate of Prosecutors and Proud Boys (YouTube)