Former U.S. Pardon Attorney Liz Oyer Sues the Justice Department
Former U.S. Pardon Attorney Elizabeth Oyer has filed a federal lawsuit challenging her March 2025 removal from the Department of Justice, arguing that her termination violated civil-service protections and her constitutional rights. Oyer is seeking reinstatement, back pay, and a declaration that her removal was unlawful. The Justice Department has disputed her account of why it fired her.
The case raises important questions about the independence of career public servants and, for those concerned with clemency, about the integrity of a process that can determine whether someone receives a meaningful second chance.
Oyer served as U.S. Pardon Attorney from April 2022 until March 2025. The position is a career-reserved role in the Senior Executive Service, rather than a political appointment. During her tenure, she oversaw the review of clemency applications and recommendations to the president, and her office worked to make the application process more accessible and transparent. According to Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Oyer and her team reviewed and recommended on more than 15,000 clemency cases during her three years in office.
What Oyer says happened
Oyer alleges that shortly before her firing, she was asked to recommend restoring firearm rights to actor Mel Gibson. According to Oyer, Gibson had not gone through the ordinary review conducted by her office, and she believed additional information was necessary before she could responsibly make a recommendation, particularly in light of Gibson’s prior domestic-violence conviction.
Oyer says she declined to add Gibson to a list of people recommended for restoration of firearm rights and was removed from her position hours later. Security reportedly escorted her from the building.
The Justice Department disputes that account. Todd Blanche, then Deputy Attorney General and now Attorney General, testified that he did not know about the Gibson matter when he decided to remove Oyer. He has said she was fired for several reasons, including disagreements with recommendations she made during the closing period of the Biden administration.
Those competing claims are now before the courts.
Why the lawsuit matters beyond one firing
Oyer’s complaint is about her employment, but the larger issue is the role of professional, independent review within the federal clemency system.
Presidents have broad constitutional authority to grant pardons and commutations. The Office of the Pardon Attorney, however, has historically provided an institutional process for reviewing applications, investigating facts, and making recommendations. That process matters most for people without personal access to political officials, wealthy advocates, or influential intermediaries.
Before her removal, Oyer repeatedly emphasized that clemency should not depend on wealth, status, or political connections. Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights describes her tenure as focused on making “second chances through clemency available to all deserving Americans without consideration of status, resources, or politics.”
That principle closely aligns with the National Council’s work.
For years, the National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls has advocated for meaningful use of clemency, particularly for women serving lengthy sentences who may have little public visibility and few resources with which to press their cases.
There are women in federal prison whose applications do not arrive with celebrity, political access, or high-profile representation attached to them. Their cases still deserve careful, individualized consideration.
That is why an independent Pardon Attorney’s Office matters.
The National Council continues to stand with Liz Oyer
The National Council supported Oyer when questions first emerged about her removal, and that support continues as her legal challenge proceeds.
This does not require prejudging the lawsuit. The courts will determine whether her dismissal complied with federal law and applicable civil-service protections.
But the principles implicated by the case are already clear: career officials responsible for reviewing clemency and other forms of relief should be able to apply established standards, request necessary information, and provide independent professional advice without fear that politically inconvenient conclusions will cost them their positions.
Oyer’s record is particularly relevant to incarcerated women seeking clemency. During her tenure, she worked to expand access to a system that has often been difficult for people without lawyers, money, or political connections to navigate. In 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights recognized her with its Human Rights Award, citing her work and her willingness to act on her professional convictions.
The National Council’s concern is ultimately larger than any single administration, president, or pardon attorney.
Clemency should not be reserved for the well-connected.
Women such as Roberta Bell and countless others whose names will never appear in national headlines deserve the same serious review as anyone with access to powerful people.
The legal questions surrounding Liz Oyer’s dismissal will now be tested in court. Whatever the outcome, her case underscores why a credible clemency process requires transparency, independence, and equal consideration for people who have no political influence at all.
To continue to support The National Council as we work to end the incarceration of women and girls CLICK HERE.