Former Justice Department pardon attorney Elizabeth Oyer filed a lawsuit on Thursday, September 3, 2026, alleging she was unlawfully fired for refusing to recommend the restoration of actor Mel Gibson’s gun rights. The suit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., names the Department of Justice and then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche as defendants, claiming Oyer was terminated hours after declining to include Gibson on a list of candidates for clemency.
Oyer, who served as pardon attorney from April 2022 until March 2025, stated that the dispute began in early 2025 when she was tasked with identifying individuals for firearm rights restoration. Her office compiled a list of 95 people convicted of nonviolent offenses who were vetted and determined to have a low risk of reoffending. According to the complaint, Blanche’s office narrowed that list to nine names and then requested that Oyer add Gibson, who had a 2011 conviction for domestic abuse.
The lawsuit alleges that a senior official on Blanche’s staff pressured Oyer to recommend Gibson because of his personal relationship with President Donald Trump, who had designated the actor a "special ambassador" to Hollywood. Oyer refused, noting that Gibson had not undergone the same departmental vetting as other candidates and citing high recidivism rates for domestic abusers. After Oyer submitted a memo on a day in March 2025 that excluded Gibson, she was escorted from the building and fired. Gibson’s gun rights were subsequently restored by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi in April 2025.
The scale of the reported clemency program involved an initial vetting of approximately 95 individuals, which was reduced to nine recommendations before the dispute over Gibson occurred. Oyer is seeking reinstatement to her position along with the restoration of lost pay and benefits. For the public, the case centers on whether firearm restoration decisions—which affect public safety and legal rights—are governed by standardized investigative vetting or by personal associations with the White House. The lawsuit claims that the attempt to bypass vetting "jeopardized public safety" by ignoring established recidivism data for specific crime categories.
The concrete day-to-day change for Oyer was the immediate loss of her government salary and access to her workplace in March 2025. For other federal attorneys, a ruling in Oyer's favor would reinforce their legal right to provide independent recommendations without fear of instant dismissal. Conversely, a ruling for the Department of Justice would affirm the President's broad authority under Article II of the Constitution to remove executive officials. The Department of Justice declined to comment on the pending litigation, and no court date has yet been set for the proceedings.