Ex-FBI Agents Suing Over Allegedly Retaliatory Firings Can Sue Pseudonymously

From Chief Judge James Boasberg (D.D.C.) Monday in Does v. Patel:

Plaintiffs are twelve former FBI Special Agents who allege that they were summarily dismissed from the FBI in September 2025 in retaliation for actions they took five years ago to de-escalate civil unrest in downtown Washington, D.C., following the death of George Floyd. Asserting that the terminations violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights, they seek declaratory and injunctive relief, including reinstatement, expungement of personnel records, and backpay.

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.

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.” …

[But here], Plaintiffs are not seeking anonymity “merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation.” [Rather, they are concerned that identifying them] would expose information whose disclosure could threaten the plaintiff’s safety…. [T]he D.C. Circuit has repeatedly recognized that FBI agents — unlike most litigants — have a longstanding and legitimate interest in preserving the confidentiality of their identities when disclosure could subject them to harassment or danger. Plaintiffs allege that they previously worked in counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and other sensitive investigative roles, and that their terminations have drawn significant public attention.

Given that background, and in light of the increasing incidence of doxing and SWATting directed at law enforcement, publicly linking their names to this litigation could materially increase the risk that they or their families will be targeted or subjected to physical or mental harm…. Plaintiffs allege a credible and non-speculative threat of retaliatory harm ….