Driscoll Lawsuit: Why Fired FBI Leaders Are Suing Patel

Three fired senior FBI officials, led by former acting director Brian Driscoll, are the plaintiffs in Driscoll v. Patel, a federal lawsuit accusing FBI Director Kash Patel of illegally terminating them as political retribution for their work on investigations connected to President Donald Trump. Filed September 10, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the case is awaiting a ruling on the government’s motion to dismiss.¹

Who Is Suing and Why

The lead plaintiff, Brian Driscoll, Jr., was named acting FBI director by President Trump on January 20, 2025, to run the bureau while Patel awaited Senate confirmation.² Within a week, according to the complaint, acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove asked Driscoll and acting deputy director Robert Kissane to identify the “core team” of FBI agents who had investigated the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.³

Driscoll and Kissane initially refused, arguing there was no lawful reason for the request and warning that agents on the list could be targeted if the names leaked. Bove called it “insubordination,” issued a formal directive on January 31, 2025, that expanded the request to every FBI employee who had worked on any January 6 matter, and set a deadline of noon on February 4.⁴ After consulting FBI legal counsel, Driscoll and Kissane compiled and turned over the list.³

The complaint quotes Patel, after his February 20, 2025 confirmation, as telling Driscoll that his job security depended on removing agents who had worked on Trump-related cases, saying “the FBI tried to put the president in jail and he hasn’t forgotten it.”⁵ The lawsuit alleges Patel acknowledged the summary firings were “in direct violation of internal FBI processes” and “likely illegal.”³

On August 7, 2025, Patel fired Driscoll and several other senior officials.⁶ The terminations came in one-page letters citing only “Article II” presidential authority, with no stated cause and no opportunity to retire and preserve pensions.¹ The complaint alleges Driscoll was also questioned by White House official Paul Ingrassia about how he voted in 2024 and whether he would hold agents “accountable” for the search of Mar-a-Lago.⁷

The two co-plaintiffs describe similar patterns. Steve Jensen, whom Patel himself had picked to run the FBI’s Washington Field Office, was fired after refusing a May 2025 order from Deputy Director Dan Bongino to terminate Special Agent Walter Giardina, a decorated veteran who had worked Trump-related cases. Jensen warned Bongino that carrying out the firing would violate FBI policy and federal veteran protections.⁸

Spencer Evans, who headed the Las Vegas Field Office, received a termination letter dated August 6, 2025, citing “lack of reasonableness and overzealousness” during his earlier assignment overseeing COVID-19 vaccine exemption requests at the FBI’s Human Resources Division. The lawsuit says Evans has no recollection of ever denying an exemption request.⁸

What the Lawsuit Claims

The complaint was docketed as case number 1:25-cv-03109. Along with Patel, the defendants are Attorney General Pamela Bondi, the FBI, the Department of Justice, the Executive Office of the President, and the United States.⁹

The plaintiffs assert three principal theories:

First Amendment retaliation for refusing to politicize the bureau and for their case assignments.
Fifth Amendment due process violations, because they were fired summarily without the procedural protections owed to FBI Senior Executive Service members.
Statutory and ultra vires claims, arguing the terminations exceeded the director’s legal authority. The plaintiffs contend that removal of FBI Senior Executive Service “key executives” is reserved to the deputy attorney general, not the FBI director, and that federal statutes require cause and formal procedure.¹⁵

They ask the court for a declaration that the firings were illegal, reinstatement, and a name-clearing hearing for each plaintiff.⁹

The complaint also points to Patel’s Senate confirmation testimony, when he said “personnel decisions should be based on performance and adherence to the law” and that “no one will be terminated for case assignments.”⁵

Driscoll and Jensen are represented by Abbe David Lowell of Lowell & Associates and by Margaret Donovan and Christopher Mattei of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder. Evans is represented by Mark S. Zaid and Heidi Burakiewicz of Burakiewicz & DePriest.¹⁰⁹

How the Government Is Responding

The Trump administration filed a motion to dismiss on January 20, 2026, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to state a viable claim and that the court lacks jurisdiction.¹¹ Its core position is that the executive branch has broad latitude to fire law enforcement officers, grounded in Article II of the Constitution.¹²

Where the Case Stands

Briefing on the motion to dismiss is complete. The plaintiffs filed their opposition on February 17, 2026, and the defendants filed a reply on March 6, 2026, attaching new evidence as an exhibit. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to file a surreply on March 17, 2026, specifically to address that new material.¹¹

Two amicus briefs were filed in support of the plaintiffs, one by Lawyers Defending American Democracy and one by the States United Democracy Center on behalf of 16 university scholars, including Larry Diamond and Francis Fukuyama.¹²

The case is assigned to Judge Jia M. Cobb. As of June 2026, the docket shows no ruling on the motion to dismiss and no hearing scheduled.¹³

The Wider Firings Around the Case

Driscoll v. Patel is the highest-profile of several legal challenges to a broader personnel shakeup at the FBI. In the first weeks of the second Trump administration, at least six senior officials overseeing cyber, national security, and criminal investigations were pushed out.⁶ In February 2026, the FBI fired roughly 10 employees who had worked on the classified documents investigation.¹⁴

The FBI Agents Association called the terminations “erratic and arbitrary retribution” that “disregarded the law” and warned they were “stripping away critical expertise and destabilizing the workforce.”¹⁴ The association and groups of anonymous FBI agents have filed separate lawsuits alleging retaliation and constitutional violations.¹⁵

Driscoll left government after his firing and is now a senior fellow at Yale University’s Jackson School of Global Affairs and a partner at the McChrystal Group.¹⁶

1
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Driscoll, Jr. v. Patel
2
Daily News. FBI Acting Director
3
NBC News. Former Top FBI Officials Sue, Say Kash Patel Fired Them to Stay in Trump’s Good Graces
4
Politico. Justice Department Memo Accuses FBI of Insubordination
5
Courthouse News. Senior FBI Officials Say They Were Fired for Working Prior Investigations Into Trump
6
CNN. FBI Fires Senior Officials at Odds With Trump Administration
7
U.S. Congress. House Judiciary Committee Document
8
PBS NewsHour. Fired FBI Officials Sue Patel, Claiming He Bowed to Trump’s Campaign of Retribution
9
Politico. FBI Fired Leaders File Lawsuit Against Trump Administration
10
Hartford Courant. CT Law Firm Helps File Suit for Former FBI Agents Who Alleged Firings Were Politically Motivated
11
CourtListener. Driscoll, Jr. v. Patel Docket
12
States United Democracy Center. Driscoll v. Patel Press Release
13
CourtListener. Driscoll, Jr. v. Patel Parties
14
BBC News. FBI Fires Employees Who Investigated Trump Classified Documents
15
Just Security. Purges at DOJ and FBI and Civil Service Laws
16
McChrystal Group. Brian Driscoll