Liz Oyer Sues DOJ Over Mel Gibson Dispute
Former U.S. Pardon Attorney Elizabeth “Liz” Oyer has sued the U.S. Department of Justice and Attorney General Todd Blanche, alleging that she was unlawfully fired after refusing to recommend restoring actor Mel Gibson’s firearm rights. Oyer’s lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., claims her March 2025 termination was retaliation for refusing what she characterized as a politically motivated favor for a person with ties to President Donald Trump.
Oyer served as the Justice Department’s Pardon Attorney from 2022 until March 2025. Her office plays a role in evaluating applications for presidential clemency, including pardons and commutations, and in certain circumstances recommendations concerning restoration of federal firearm rights.
According to Oyer’s lawsuit, the dispute arose in early 2025 when she was asked to recommend that Gibson’s gun rights be restored. Oyer says she had concerns because Gibson had previously lost his firearm rights following a 2011 domestic-violence misdemeanor conviction. She alleges that she was pressured to set those concerns aside and make it appear that an independent review supported restoring Gibson’s rights.
Oyer claims Gibson received special treatment because of his relationship with Trump. She says she refused to make the recommendation and later declined a second request from someone working for then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. Shortly afterward, she says she was removed from a meeting, handed a termination letter by Justice Department security personnel and escorted from the building.
The lawsuit represents a formal escalation of allegations Oyer previously made publicly. She raised the circumstances surrounding her firing during congressional proceedings concerning Blanche’s nomination as attorney general. Oyer maintained that her dismissal came immediately after she rejected the request involving Gibson.
Blanche, however, has denied that he knew about the Gibson matter when Oyer was fired. During his confirmation proceedings, he said he had known nothing about Gibson or the letter in question at the time he terminated Oyer. Blanche has instead said her dismissal was related, at least in part, to clemency recommendations she made near the end of President Joe Biden’s administration.
Oyer disputes that explanation. According to Reuters, she says the connection to Biden-era commutation recommendations was not communicated to her at the time and that she only learned of that justification later.
The Gibson issue itself has a complicated history. Gibson lost his federal firearm rights following his domestic-violence conviction. Reporting in 2025 indicated that the Justice Department was moving toward restoring those rights. Oyer’s lawsuit alleges that the process surrounding Gibson was different from the normal review process because of his political relationship with Trump.
The lawsuit argues that Oyer’s removal violated her constitutional due-process and First Amendment rights, as well as protections provided under federal civil-service law. She also argues that the circumstances raise broader separation-of-powers concerns because career government officials should be able to perform their duties without being punished for refusing political demands.
Oyer is seeking several forms of relief, including reinstatement to federal service, back pay and benefits, and an order preventing the Justice Department from taking further adverse personnel action against her without the legal protections she says federal employees are entitled to receive.
The case is part of a broader series of legal disputes involving former federal employees who say the Trump administration improperly removed them from government positions. It also raises a significant question about the boundary between presidential authority over executive-branch personnel and the protections afforded to career civil servants.
At its heart, the lawsuit presents two competing accounts. Oyer says she was fired because she refused to bend established procedures for Trump’s political ally and friend. The Justice Department and Blanche have rejected that characterization, maintaining that the Gibson matter was not the reason for her termination.
Because the allegations are contained in a newly filed lawsuit, no court has yet determined that Oyer’s account is true or that the Justice Department violated the law. The litigation will now determine whether she can establish that her firing was unlawful and whether the circumstances surrounding Gibson’s firearm-rights restoration played a role in the decision.
The case could ultimately become an important test of political influence, civil-service protections and executive power inside the Justice Department.
⚖️ Key Legal Outcome
- Liz Oyer filed a federal lawsuit against the DOJ and Attorney General Todd Blanche challenging her March 2025 termination.
- She alleges she was fired after refusing to recommend restoration of Mel Gibson’s gun rights.
- Oyer claims her firing violated due-process and First Amendment protections as well as federal civil-service law.
- Blanche disputes Oyer’s account, saying he was unaware of the Gibson matter when she was fired.
- The court has not yet ruled on the allegations; Oyer is seeking reinstatement, back pay and other relief.
❗ Why It Matters
- The lawsuit raises questions about whether political connections can influence DOJ decisions involving firearm rights.
- It tests the limits of presidential authority to remove career federal officials.
- The case could affect protections available to government employees who resist alleged political pressure.
- Gibson’s case highlights the controversial intersection of celebrity, politics and firearm restrictions.
- A ruling could have broader implications for independence and accountability within the Justice Department.
