Allegations of Political Pressure in Firearms Review Process
Liz Oyer, a former attorney with the U. S. Department of Justice, filed a lawsuit claiming she was terminated in 2024 after refusing to support a request to restore Mel Gibson’s firearm rights. She alleges the dismissal was retaliatory, stemming from her professional objections to the actor’s application. The case was filed in federal court in San Francisco on September 3, 2026, and centers on whether her refusal to comply with a politically influenced directive violated federal employment protections.
Breaking news
Deadly Glacier and Rock Collapse in Nepal Linked to Climate Warming
US Congress Passes Sweeping Sanctions Against Russia
Speaker Johnson Ends House Session Early to Halt Impeachment Effort
The High-Stakes Fight for Senate Majority ControlOyer states she raised concerns about Gibson’s eligibility due to his 2011 domestic violence conviction, which under federal law prohibits firearm possession unless rights are formally restored through a pardon or relief from disabilities. She claims her supervisors instructed her to overlook these legal barriers, citing Gibson’s personal acquaintance with former President Donald Trump as justification. According to the complaint, she was told to „ignore the red flags” because of the connection, despite her duty to uphold statutory requirements under the Gun Control Act.
The lawsuit details how Oyer, who worked in the DOJ’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, reviewed applications for relief from firearms disabilities. She says Gibson’s request arrived in early 2024 and triggered immediate concern due to his documented history of violence. Federal guidelines require a rigorous assessment of an applicant’s character, criminal record, and likelihood of future harm before approving such relief. Oyer asserts she concluded Gibson did not meet the threshold for approval.
Did the DOJ Prioritize Loyalty Over Legal Standards?
She claims her superiors pressured her to reverse her findings, suggesting the decision should favor Gibson because of his ties to Trump. When she refused to alter her recommendation, she says she was placed on administrative leave and later fired without substantive explanation. The lawsuit argues this constitutes wrongful termination in violation of civil service protections and whistleblower safeguards designed to prevent political interference in merit-based decisions.
Oyer’s legal team contends the case raises serious questions about whether political relationships are unduly influencing federal firearms restoration decisions. They argue that allowing personal connections to override legal criteria undermines public trust in the justice system and creates dangerous precedents. The DOJ has not publicly commented on the specific allegations but maintains that all employment actions comply with federal law.
If proven, the case could prompt broader scrutiny of how pardon and clemency offices handle high-profile applications, particularly those involving celebrities or individuals with political ties. It may also lead to calls for stronger insulation of merit-based reviews from external influence, including potential reforms to oversight or reporting mechanisms within the Department of Justice.
Frequently Asked Questions
What specific legal basis does Liz Oyer claim for her lawsuit? Oyer alleges wrongful termination and retaliation under federal civil service laws and whistleblower protections, asserting she was fired for refusing to compromise her professional judgment in a firearms rights review.
Why was Mel Gibson’s firearm rights restoration request controversial? Gibson was convicted of domestic violence in 2011, which under federal law triggers a lifetime firearm ban unless relief is granted through a pardon or official disabilities removal—a process requiring strict eligibility review.
What outcome is Oyer seeking in her lawsuit? She seeks reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages, and a court declaration that her termination was unlawful, aiming to hold the DOJ accountable for alleged political interference in a merit-based decision.