CHICAGO, Illinois, September 4, 2026 — Los Angeles lawyer Liz Oyer, a former U.S. Pardon Attorney, sued the Justice Department Thursday for what she termed an illegal termination. She claims she was kicked off the board for opposing a recommendation that actor Mel Gibson’s gun rights be restored. The suit names department and attorney general Todd Blanche as defendants.
It is one of a number of suits from ex-officials accusing the Trump administration of political retaliation. Among the highest-profile critics of Blanche’s leadership at the department has been Oyer. Her testimony against his nomination captured widespread attention during his confirmation proceeding this summer.
A Request She Refused
Oyer said the senior official bullied her into recommending that Gibson again have his rights to own a gun restored despite his past. Even though Gibson had lost his gun rights due to a domestic violence conviction decades earlier. She states that she complained he had not completed the typical background check.
When Oyer said no again, a staff member on then-Deputy Attorney General Blanche’s team pressed her once more. The request had cited Gibson’s personal ties to Donald Trump as a rationale. The Office of the Pardon Attorney, which Oyer once oversaw, prescribes legal standards for pardon recommendations.
How the Firing Unfolded
Shortly after she rebuffed the second request, Oyer says, security officers showed up with termination papers. She was pardon attorney from 2022 to until her ouster in 2025. The DOJ has to prove her firing was legal irrespective of intent, she claims in the suit.
The complaint also mentions the DOJ has consistently argued that only the attorney general can exercise removal authority under Article II. The suit claims that Oyer’s firing was carried out before Blanche had even become attorney general. Merit Systems Protection Board, which hears appeals by federal workers who say employment protection rules are being violated.
Public Dispute Over Reason for Her Dismissal
In April 2025, Oyer initially challenged her termination before the Merit Systems Protection Board. An administrative judge dismissed that appeal before she filed her suit. During her testimony, she testified against Blanche’s nomination for attorney general in front of lawmakers on July 29.
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, which is in charge of DOJ oversight, keeps archived congressional testimony records related to the confirmation hearing. Oyer’s entire statement in opposition to Blanche’s confirmation is a matter of public record — part of the committee proceedings. Much of the voting in that hearing broke down along party lines among committee senators.
Blanche has challenged Oyer’s description of the events surrounding her termination. He told lawmakers that “I had never heard a word about Mel Gibson” when she was dismissed. He said her firing had actually stemmed from earlier recommendations she made for commutation.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
The federal court suit filed by Oyer asks that her removal be declared unlawful, invalid and without legal effect. It also requests that she be reinstated in federal service with back pay and benefits. The complaint also asks the court to prohibit any further adverse action without sufficient legal protections in place.
Washington gets the lawsuit filed by legal advocacy group Democracy Forward representing Oyer. The group has represented a number of former officials claiming they were wrongfully fired from the Trump administration. The DOJ has not yet formally responded to the allegations in the lawsuit.
PACER is an electronic records system that allows for access to federal case filings and docket updates. The motions and scheduling orders of the case can be tracked by the public as it evolves in such a system. As of Thursday’s filing, no hearing date had been assigned.
Oyer’s case adds a minor league Wal-Mart of federal employment-related cases involving political appointments. The legal experts say this will of course settle the limits on removal authority within the Justice Department. A decision in her favor could affect other similar cases against the administration that are still being litigated.
