Fired FBI Agents Sue Kash Patel and DOJ, Bacon v. Patel Lawsuit Over Mar-a-Lago Investigation Firings

Nine former FBI employees have sued FBI Director Kash Patel, Attorney General Todd Blanche, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Justice. They allege they were unlawfully fired because of their work on the investigation into President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

The complaint was filed on October 15, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs, who are former special agents, intelligence analysts and staff operations specialists, say Patel terminated them over two days in February 2026 without an internal investigation, meaningful notice, a hearing or an appeal. They describe the firings as political retaliation for carrying out assigned investigative duties.

These are allegations, not findings. The case is newly filed. No ruling on the merits and no formal response from the defendants had been verified through October 16, 2026.

Important notice: AllAboutLawyer.com is an independent legal information publication. We are not a law firm, we do not represent any party, and this article is not legal advice.

Quick Facts: Former FBI Employees v. Kash Patel and Justice Department

Detail	Verified information
Case name	Jennifer Bacon et al. v. Kashyap P. Patel et al.
Case number	1:26-cv-03604
Court	U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Complaint filed	October 15, 2026 (about 70 pages)
Plaintiffs	Nine former FBI employees
Individual defendants	Kashyap P. Patel and Todd Blanche, in their official capacities
Agency defendants	Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Department of Justice
Plaintiffs’ counsel	Reported to include Abbe Lowell, Margaret Donovan (Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder) and Rebecca Tinio (KKL LLP)
Main allegation	Political retaliation and termination without required due process
Investigation at issue	FBI investigation internally known as “Plasmic Echo,” concerning Trump’s retention of classified documents
Reported termination dates	February 25-26, 2026, with some processing described on February 27
Claims	First Amendment retaliation, Fifth Amendment procedural due process and, for two plaintiffs, separation of powers and statutory protections
Relief sought	Reinstatement, back pay, declaratory relief, protection against further unlawful personnel action, attorney fees
Dollar demand	No single total monetary demand verified
Class action	No. Nine named plaintiffs; no class certification sought
Claim form	None. This is an employment lawsuit, not a consumer claims program
Status	Newly filed; no merits ruling or defendant response verified as of October 16, 2026

What Is the Lawsuit About?

The complaint alleges the nine plaintiffs were dismissed because they had worked on the classified-documents investigation involving Trump, not because the FBI established misconduct. The plaintiffs say they did not volunteer for the case. They were assigned to it because of their roles in counterintelligence and intelligence units. According to the complaint, their combined service exceeds a century and covers national-security investigations, counterespionage and responses to major threats.

The case raises two connected questions:

1. Can the government dismiss career law-enforcement employees because of perceived political views, or because they carried out an investigation the President considers illegitimate?
2. Even if the FBI director has broad personnel authority, can it be exercised without procedures required by federal law, or in violation of constitutional rights?

The plaintiffs are not asking the court to reopen the criminal case against Trump or to decide whether the original investigation was justified.

Who Are the Nine Plaintiffs?

Plaintiff	Background described in the complaint
Jennifer Bacon	Former senior counterintelligence leader and FBI Senior Executive Service member; military veteran
Zach Feldman	Former special agent, counterintelligence and national-security work
Gilbert Granados	Former FBI staff operations specialist
Catherine Herrera	Former supervisory intelligence analyst
Harrison Kaufman	Former staff operations specialist, national-security work
Jeremy Linton	Former supervisory special agent, including Iranian counterintelligence; military veteran
Erin Matanic	Former intelligence analyst, Northern Virginia Resident Agency
Danielle Ray	Former special agent who worked on the classified-documents investigation
Rachel Vaccaro	Former FBI employee assigned to national-security investigative work

The table summarizes selected roles, not every position held.

How Did the February 2026 Firings Happen?

The “Plasmic Echo” Investigation and the File Access Request

The complaint identifies “Plasmic Echo” as the FBI’s internal name for the classified-documents investigation. It alleges that on February 23, 2026, FBI Special Agent Miles Starr, detailed to Patel’s Director’s Advisory Team, urgently requested access to the case files and said he was acting on Patel’s instructions.

Because the matter was a Sensitive Investigative Matter, access was restricted. Starr requested access through Jennifer Bacon, who granted it. The plaintiffs say the files contained the names of all nine employees.

The complaint alleges Bacon was terminated less than 48 hours after granting access, and the other plaintiffs were fired over the following days. The timing is central to the plaintiffs’ theory, but it does not by itself prove retaliation. The court would have to examine who made the decisions and why.

What the Termination Letters Said

According to the complaint, Patel signed the letters. They accused the employees of “poor judgment and a lack of impartiality” that contributed to the political weaponization of government. The plaintiffs deny bias and say they performed assigned work without political motivation. They say they received no evidence supporting the accusations and no meaningful chance to respond.

The complaint also alleges Patel invoked Article II of the Constitution as the basis for his action.

Was There an Investigation Before the Firings?

The plaintiffs say they were fired without an internal disciplinary investigation or appeal, and that some supervisors did not know the reasons. Patel has publicly maintained that employees dismissed under his leadership were fired for cause after conduct reviews. The plaintiffs dispute that account. No court has resolved the dispute.

Background: The Mar-a-Lago Classified-Documents Case

• January 2021: Trump left office with records that later became the subject of a federal investigation.
• August 8, 2022: The FBI executed a court-authorized search warrant at Mar-a-Lago and recovered classified records.
• June-July 2023: A federal grand jury indicted Trump in the Southern District of Florida. A superseding indictment in July 2023 added counts and co-defendants. Charges included willful retention of national-defense information under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) and obstruction-related offenses. Trump denied wrongdoing, and charges are allegations, not convictions.
• July 15, 2024: Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the indictment, finding Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment unlawful, without deciding the merits.
• After the 2024 election: The Justice Department discontinued the prosecution, consistent with its policy against prosecuting a sitting President.

The dismissal did not establish that the FBI’s investigation was politically motivated or that the agents acted unlawfully. The employment case concerns only the legality of the terminations.

Laws and Legal Theories in the Case

First Amendment: Political Retaliation

The First Amendment limits government employment decisions based on political affiliation or belief. In Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990), the Supreme Court held that employment decisions generally cannot rest on party affiliation unless political loyalty is a legitimate job requirement. Related cases include Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976), and Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980). Speech-based claims by public employees are generally analyzed under Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), and Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983).

The plaintiffs argue defendants presumed that working on the Trump investigation meant political motive or disloyalty. Courts consider the nature of the job, and policymaking or confidential positions can be treated differently. The court has not ruled on this claim.

Fifth Amendment: Procedural Due Process

The Fifth Amendment bars the federal government from depriving a person of property without due process. A claim requires a legally protected interest in continued employment (Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)) and inadequate procedures. In Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), the Supreme Court held that employees with a property interest are entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before termination. Whether FBI employees hold such an interest depends on their status and the governing statutes.

The Civil Service Reform Act and Why FBI Employees Are Different

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 created the main system for reviewing federal personnel actions, with appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). But 5 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(8) excludes FBI employees from much of the general adverse-action system, which limits the usual MSPB route.

Other points the defendants may raise:

• Channeling and preclusion: Courts have held that the CSRA’s scheme can displace separate district-court suits over covered personnel actions (United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (1988); Elgin v. Department of the Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (2012)). Whether constitutional claims by FBI employees fit that framework is likely to be contested.
• FBI whistleblower rules: 5 U.S.C. § 2303 and 28 C.F.R. Part 27 give FBI employees a separate reprisal process for protected disclosures. The complaint is not described as a whistleblower case, but these provisions show FBI employees have distinct channels.
• Remedies: Back pay is governed by the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596, and by the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491), which can raise questions about the proper court. Reinstatement and declaratory relief are equitable remedies, and the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA limits universal injunctions but not party-specific relief.

These are potential defenses and procedural issues, not rulings.

Senior Executive Service Protections (Bacon)

Jennifer Bacon alleges she was an FBI Senior Executive Service member who had completed her probationary period. 5 U.S.C. § 3151 governs the FBI’s Senior Executive Service, and 5 U.S.C. § 7543 generally allows removal of covered senior executives only for specified reasons, such as misconduct, neglect of duty or malfeasance, with notice and response procedures. The complaint argues her removal violated these protections. Whether the statute applies as claimed is for the court.

Veterans’ Protections (Bacon and Linton)

The complaint identifies Bacon and Linton as military veterans claiming additional procedural rights, such as notice of a proposed action and a chance to respond (5 U.S.C. § 7513). Application depends on statutory eligibility and employment status. These arguments apply to those two plaintiffs only.

Separation of Powers and Article II (Bacon and Linton)

The complaint argues Article II does not let the FBI director disregard statutory removal procedures that Congress established. Supreme Court cases on presidential removal power, including Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 591 U.S. 197 (2020), and Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. 220 (2021), concern removal of officers and are not a direct match for career employees. The defendants are likely to cite Article II authority; the plaintiffs will argue Congress may set rules for covered employees.

Administrative Procedure Act

Plaintiffs challenging agency action sometimes also invoke the APA (5 U.S.C. § 706). The complaint as described rests mainly on constitutional and statutory personnel claims, but APA arguments and the APA’s limits on review of certain personnel actions may arise.

What Relief Do the Plaintiffs Want?

1. A declaration that the terminations violated their First Amendment rights.
2. A declaration that the terminations violated their Fifth Amendment due-process rights.
3. A declaration that the actions affecting Bacon and Linton violated separation-of-powers principles and statutory protections.
4. Reinstatement to their former FBI positions.
5. An order preventing further adverse personnel actions without required procedures.
6. Back pay and other available relief.
7. Attorney fees and costs where authorized (for example under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, if applicable).

No fixed total dollar amount is stated.

What Happens Next?

The case is at an early stage. Likely steps include service of the complaint, the government’s response, possible motions to dismiss, and scheduling orders. Federal defendants generally have 60 days after service on the U.S. Attorney to respond (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(2)). The defendants may move to dismiss on grounds such as lack of jurisdiction, CSRA channeling, failure to state a claim, or Article II authority. If claims survive, discovery may follow. A settlement is possible, but none has been announced.

Has the Justice Department responded? No formal response was verified through October 16. The FBI did not respond to a media request for comment when the Associated Press reported the lawsuit.

Related Lawsuits Over FBI Firings

• Doe 1 et al. v. Patel et al., No. 1:26-cv-00959 (filed March 2026): two former FBI agents allege their 2025 terminations were retaliatory because of their assignment to the “Arctic Frost” investigation.
• Garman et al. v. Patel et al., No. 1:26-cv-01086 (filed March 2026): three former FBI employees challenge conduct by FBI and Justice Department leadership.

These cases involve different plaintiffs, assignments and procedural questions. A ruling in one does not automatically decide the others.

For separate litigation involving Patel, read Kash Patel vs. The Atlantic Monthly $250 Million Defamation Lawsuit, Full Case Breakdown. That case concerns published statements about Patel and is not part of this employment litigation.

Key Dates

Date	Event
January 2021	Trump leaves the White House with records later investigated.
August 8, 2022	FBI executes search warrant at Mar-a-Lago.
June-July 2023	Indictment and superseding indictment in the Southern District of Florida.
July 15, 2024	Judge Cannon dismisses the indictment over the Special Counsel’s appointment.
January 2025	Trump begins second term.
February 23, 2026	Per the complaint, Special Agent Miles Starr seeks access to the “Plasmic Echo” files.
February 25-26, 2026	The nine plaintiffs say they were terminated over two days.
March 2026	Doe 1 v. Patel and Garman v. Patel filed.
October 15, 2026	Bacon et al. v. Patel et al. filed in D.D.C.
October 16, 2026	No merits ruling or defendant response verified.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did nine former FBI employees sue Kash Patel?

They allege he fired them because they worked on the Trump classified-documents investigation, and that the firings were politically retaliatory and violated their constitutional and statutory rights.

What is the case number?

Jennifer Bacon et al. v. Kashyap P. Patel et al., No. 1:26-cv-03604, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Who are the plaintiffs?

Jennifer Bacon, Zach Feldman, Gilbert Granados, Catherine Herrera, Harrison Kaufman, Jeremy Linton, Erin Matanic, Danielle Ray and Rachel Vaccaro.

What is “Plasmic Echo”?

According to the complaint, the FBI’s internal name for the investigation into Trump’s retention of classified documents.

What did the termination letters say?

Per the complaint, they accused the employees of poor judgment and lack of impartiality contributing to the political weaponization of government. The plaintiffs dispute this.

Can FBI employees be fired without a hearing?

It depends on their status, statutes and constitutional protections. FBI employees are excluded from much of the general federal adverse-action system, but plaintiffs argue some have specific protections (Senior Executive Service status, veterans’ rights) and constitutional due-process rights. The court has not ruled.

Why not just appeal to the MSPB?

5 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(8) excludes FBI employees from much of the ordinary MSPB adverse-action route. How that affects this case, including whether the CSRA channels these claims elsewhere, is a likely point of dispute.

Is this a class action?

No. Nine named plaintiffs challenge their own dismissals.

Will they automatically get their jobs back?

No. Reinstatement is a requested remedy. The court must find they are entitled to it, or the parties must agree.

Has the court decided whether Patel acted unlawfully?

No. The case was filed October 15, 2026, and the allegations are disputed.

Is there a compensation fund or claim form?

No. This is an individual employment lawsuit.

Sources

1. Complaint, Jennifer Bacon et al. v. Kashyap P. Patel et al., No. 1:26-cv-03604, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, filed October 15, 2026 (CourtListener RECAP docket, document 1). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.297658/gov.uscourts.dcd.297658.1.0.pdf
2. Associated Press, “FBI agents and analysts fired for roles in Trump classified files probe sue to get their jobs back,” October 15, 2026. https://apnews.com/article/fired-fbi-agents-lawsuit-trump-patel-maralago-69d3544a73ddcdb54f164807adde85ea
3. CBS News / PBS NewsHour and Courthouse News Service coverage of the lawsuit, October 15-16, 2026.
4. U.S. Department of Justice, superseding indictment in United States v. Trump, Nauta and De Oliveira, July 27, 2023. https://www.justice.gov/storage/US-v-Trump-Nauta-De-Oliveira-23-80101.pdf
5. Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-497/pdf/USREPORTS-497-62.pdf
6. U.S. Supreme Court: Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976); Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980); Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968); Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972); Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985); United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (1988); Elgin v. Department of the Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (2012); Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926); Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 591 U.S. 197 (2020); Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. 220 (2021); Trump v. CASA (2025).
7. United States Code: 5 U.S.C. § 7511 (https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-120/t5/s7511/), § 7513, § 7543 (https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-120/t5/s7543/), § 3151 (https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-120/t5/s3151/), § 2303, § 5596, § 706; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1491 and 2412; 18 U.S.C. § 793(e); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(2); 28 C.F.R. Part 27.
8. Complaint, Doe 1 et al. v. Patel et al., No. 1:26-cv-00959 (D.D.C.). https://san.com/wp-content/uploads/securepdfs/2026/03/FBI-Lawsuit.pdf
9. Docket, Garman et al. v. Patel et al., No. 1:26-cv-01086 (D.D.C.). https://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1%3A2026cv01086/290982
10. PACER (https://pacer.uscourts.gov/) for later filings and orders.

Disclaimer: AllAboutLawyer.com provides general legal information, not legal advice. The claims in the complaint are allegations, not judicial findings. The court has not determined whether the terminations violated the Constitution or federal personnel laws.