From Chief Judge James Boasberg (D.D.C.) yesterday in Does 1 & 2 v. Patel:
Plaintiffs are two former Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agents who allege that they were summarily dismissed from the FBI in October and November 2025 in retaliation for their assignment to "Arctic Frost," a federal investigation into a suspected conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential Election. Asserting that the terminations violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights, they seek declaratory and injunctive relief, including reinstatement and expungement of their personnel records. They now move to proceed pseudonymously, contending that public identification would expose them and their families to immediate risk of doxing, harassment, and physical harm and would also significantly impair their ability to perform sensitive law-enforcement work if reinstated.
The Court will grant the Motion, subject to any further consideration by the United States District Judge to whom this case is randomly assigned. See [Local Civil Rule] 40.7(f) (providing that Chief Judge shall "hear and determine … motion[s] to file a pseudonymous complaint")….
Generally, a complaint must identify the plaintiffs. That requirement reflects the "presumption in favor of disclosure [of litigants' identities], which stems from the 'general public interest in the openness of governmental processes,' and, more specifically, from the tradition of open judicial proceedings." A party moving to proceed pseudonymously thus "bears the weighty burden of both demonstrating a concrete need for such secrecy, and identifying the consequences that would likely befall it if forced to proceed in its own name." …
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that their interest in anonymity outweighs the public's interest in disclosure of their identities.
[P]seudonymity [is favored] when identifying a plaintiff would expose information whose disclosure could threaten the plaintiff's safety. As this Court recognized in a recent analogous case, FBI agents "have a longstanding and legitimate interest in preserving the confidentiality of their identities when disclosure could subject them to harassment or danger."
That interest carries particular force here. Plaintiffs' prior assignments—and the roles into which they seek reinstatement—involved counterintelligence, international financial fraud, and other sensitive investigative matters, effectiveness in which depends in part on anonymity. Their terminations, furthermore, have drawn significant public attention and accompanying threats. Against that backdrop, and given the documented rise in doxing and SWATting targeting law-enforcement personnel, Motion for Leave to Proceed Pseudonymously at 5 (citing FBI Security Division memo and DHS press release), formally associating Plaintiffs' names with this lawsuit could meaningfully elevate the danger that they and their families already face. The first factor thus favors pseudonymity….
[Courts also consider] "the ages of the persons whose privacy interests are sought to be protected." This factor would typically weigh against pseudonymity because "Plaintiffs are adults[ ] and no minors are parties to this case." Plaintiffs argue, however, that disclosure would threaten the safety of minor children who share the same last name as John Doe 1. In light of the "common privacy interest" that John Doe 1 shares with his minor children, this factor provides modest weight for Plaintiffs.
[P]seudonymity [is also favored] when a plaintiff sues the government for individualized relief. Both conditions are satisfied here: Defendants are federal agencies and officials, and Plaintiffs seek reinstatement, expungement of their personnel records, and other relief tied directly to their individual terminations.
Finally, permitting Plaintiffs to proceed anonymously will not prejudice Defendants. Under the fifth factor, pseudonymity poses no litigation disadvantage when a defendant is already aware of the plaintiff's true identity. The FBI itself terminated Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs have agreed to disclose their identities to Defendants under seal. Defendants accordingly suffer no disadvantage from Plaintiffs' use of pseudonyms….
Margaret Donovan (Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C.) and Elizabeth Murray Tulis (E. Danya Perry PLLC D/B/A Perry Law) represent plaintiffs.
The post Ex-FBI-Agents Alleging They Were Fired for Working on "Arctic Frost" Can Proceed Pseudonymously appeared first on Reason.com.
