Mass Resignations at DOJ: What Civil Service Protections Allow and Prohibit

Last updated 2 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Civil service protections can limit how the department disciplines career employees, but they do not give prosecutors control over which cases are pursued. Resigning in protest can leave a Justice Department prosecutor with fewer ways to challenge losing the job than waiting to be fired.

The resignation numbers describe different things

In January 2026, six federal prosecutors in Minnesota resigned over a Justice Department request to investigate an individual following the January 7 fatal shooting, Reuters reported, citing two people familiar with the situation. Reuters said the precise scope of the requested investigation was unclear.

Reuters reported on January 13, 2026, that at least a dozen federal prosecutors had indicated plans to leave the department over the Trump administration’s handling of the January 7 shooting and other civil rights cases, citing people familiar with the situation. The departures spanned the U.S. attorney’s office in Minneapolis and the Civil Rights Division in Washington. Besides the six in Minnesota, six senior prosecutors in the criminal section of the Civil Rights Division had informed the department that they planned to leave, the report said. Division head Harmeet Dhillon had told that unit it would not be involved in the probe of the Minnesota shooting, it said.

In a February 27, 2026 statement, Democratic Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Dick Durbin cited reporting that senior Justice Department officials had suggested an alternative investigation into whether an individual was connected to protest groups.

A Justice Department official told Reuters that the Civil Rights Division lawyers requesting early retirement had done so before the Minnesota shooting. A resignation over a particular dispute and an earlier retirement request are different things, and a single count blurs them.

Separately, Dhillon said in August 2025 that of roughly 400 attorneys in the division at the start of the Trump administration, about 300 had left that year, Bloomberg Law reported. That is a division-specific estimate, not a department-wide count of prosecutors leaving at once.

Justice Connection, an advocacy organization supporting the Justice Department workforce, published an analysis of Office of Personnel Management (OPM) data that put the department’s attorney workforce at 12,955 on December 31, 2024. Its analysis counted approximately 3,402 attorneys leaving their roles between January 2025 and January 2026. That count spans about a year, so it does not mean that thousands of department lawyers quit on a single day, that every departure was a protest, or that no prosecutors remained. None of these figures is an authoritative department-wide count of resignations.

Career status protects employment, not ownership of a case

Federal law directs the attorney general to supervise federal litigation and direct United States attorneys, assistant United States attorneys and designated special attorneys, except where another law authorizes otherwise. Career service is not a separate chain of command that can overrule department leadership.

The Justice Department’s Principles of Federal Prosecution call for evidence likely to obtain and sustain a conviction, while also allowing decisions against prosecution when there is no substantial federal interest, effective prosecution elsewhere or an adequate noncriminal alternative. The same guidance treats the absence of probable cause as an absolute bar to initiating a federal prosecution. The department says these internal principles do not create a substantive or procedural right enforceable by a party litigating against the United States. An internal policy dispute therefore should not be confused with a court ruling that a directive is unlawful.

A 2025 dispute illustrates how department leadership can seek dismissal despite a prosecutor’s objection, though not which job protections applied to the prosecutor involved. The September 2024 indictment charged Adams with bribery, wire fraud, soliciting foreign campaign contributions and related conspiracy. In the prosecution of New York City Mayor Eric Adams, acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove said he had ordered dismissal on February 10, 2025, citing what he called well-founded concerns about “weaponization,” election interference and obstacles to Adams governing and cooperating with federal law enforcement. Danielle Sassoon, the acting United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, objected in a February 12, 2025 letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi; the full text is available in the American Presidency Project archive. The letter called the process behind the decision “rushed and superficial” and said the decision was reached in seeming collaboration with Adams’ lawyers and without her direct input on the stated reasons. Sassoon said she was prepared to resign if the attorney general would not meet with her or reconsider the dismissal directive. Bove’s February 13, 2025 response accepted her resignation and criticized her refusal to carry out his instruction.

On April 2, 2025, United States District Judge Dale Ho dismissed the indictment against Adams with prejudice and ordered the case closed. Dismissal with prejudice meant the government could not bring the charges in that indictment against Adams again. Ending those charges did not resolve the separate employment questions, which turn on the rules governing personnel actions.

The employee’s appointment is the first legal question

The Justice Department’s employment guidance places assistant United States attorneys outside the competitive service, in the excepted service. Excepted service describes an appointment system, not a blanket absence of job protection.

Competitive-service hiring generally uses an assessment open to applicants to evaluate qualifications.

Veterans’ preference eligibility is defined by law and includes qualifying veterans and some spouses and parents.

Under 5 U.S.C. § 7511, an excepted-service employee without veterans’ preference eligibility can qualify for protections against serious disciplinary actions after two years of current continuous service in the same or similar positions in an executive agency. Service under a temporary appointment limited to two years or less does not count. An employee in that group also qualifies when not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment pending conversion to the competitive service. For an excepted-service employee with veterans’ preference eligibility, the statute requires one year of current continuous service in the same or similar positions instead. A new hire and an established attorney can therefore have different appeal rights even when their assignments look alike.

For covered employees, the protections apply to what the law calls adverse actions: removal, suspension for more than 14 days, reductions in grade or pay, and furloughs of 30 days or less, subject to its listed exclusions. The procedural protections normally include at least 30 days’ advance written notice, at least seven days to respond, representation and a written decision explaining the reasons. The notice rule has an exception when there is reasonable cause to believe the employee committed a crime punishable by imprisonment.

The statute excludes presidential appointees and positions formally determined to be confidential, policy-determining, policymaking or policy-advocating by the specified authorities.

The Office of Personnel Management describes Schedule Policy/Career as a category for career, nonpolitical positions that influence policy, created under Executive Order 14171 on January 20, 2025. The office’s final rule, Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service, authorizes agencies to move policy-influencing positions into Schedule Policy/Career and took effect on March 9, 2026. The office says these positions are excluded from statutory adverse-action procedures. Protections against whistleblower retaliation, discrimination and other prohibited personnel practices remain, it says, but are enforced by employing agencies instead of the Office of Special Counsel, which otherwise receives those complaints. A June 3, 2026 executive order placed the positions listed in its appendix into Schedule Policy/Career. Within the Offices of the United States Attorneys, the appendix lists specific positions titled Supervisory Attorney Advisor, Attorney Advisor and Senior Attorney Advisor, identified by position-description numbers. The category’s name alone does not establish that every Justice Department lawyer is in it.

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse’s docket record listed Government Accountability Project v. United States Office of Personnel Management as an ongoing case. The plaintiffs challenge the executive order and OPM guidance as unlawfully making certain civil-service regulations inoperative or without effect. An ongoing lawsuit is not a court order stopping a policy, so employees should check whether any court relief applies to their position. Separately, OPM proposed a rule on September 18, 2026, Employment in the Excepted Service, that would conform its regulations to current excepted-service schedules, including Schedule Policy/Career; comments, which may be submitted through Regulations.gov, must be received by November 17, 2026.

Whistleblowing and refusing an unlawful order are specific protections

A separate statute lists prohibited personnel practices, things an official with authority over personnel decisions may not do. It bars discrimination against an employee or applicant on grounds including race, religion, sex and political affiliation. It also protects qualifying disclosures that an employee reasonably believes reveal a violation of law, rule or regulation, gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, subject to disclosure restrictions. Objecting to a directive is not automatically whistleblowing: the legal question is what the employee disclosed and reasonably believed, not whether the disclosure embarrassed leadership.

The statute separately protects an employee for refusing to obey an order that would require the employee to violate a law, rule or regulation. That requires identifying the legal violation; disagreement about which defensible policy is better is a different claim. Federal law also makes government attorneys subject to the state attorney-conduct rules and local federal court rules where they perform their duties. A government lawyer therefore answers to professional conduct rules as well as to supervisors.

For certain protected disclosures involving classified or otherwise restricted information, the statute identifies lawful channels including the Office of Special Counsel, an inspector general, designated agency employees and Congress under specified limits. A protection for reporting wrongdoing should not be read as permission to release any confidential case material publicly. Within the Justice Department, the Office of Professional Responsibility investigates allegations tied to department attorneys’ authority to investigate, litigate or give legal advice, while the Office of the Inspector General has a separate waste, fraud and abuse mission.

Resigning changes what an employee must prove

Federal personnel regulations allow an employee to state the reasons for resigning in the official record. A written resignation can preserve the employee’s explanation without proving that the departure was legally involuntary. In its precedential Pierce decision, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the federal employment appeals body, explained that choosing to resign because of unpleasant alternatives did not by itself establish coercion. In a separate, nonprecedential order, the board says an employee claiming a resignation was involuntary must show it resulted from the agency’s misinformation or deception or was coerced by the agency. Coercion, it says, means the agency imposed the terms of the resignation, the employee had no realistic alternative and the resignation resulted from improper agency actions. An employee who resigns rather than carry out a disputed directive therefore cannot assume the board will treat the departure as a firing.

Before a resignation becomes effective, the agency may refuse a request to withdraw it only for a valid, explained reason, such as administrative disruption or hiring a replacement; avoiding adverse-action proceedings is not a valid reason. Advice about appointment coverage, the order itself and possible claims is most useful before an employee makes an irreversible choice.

Appeal routes have different deadlines

An ordinary Merit Systems Protection Board appeal generally must be filed within 30 days after the action’s effective date or receipt of the agency’s decision, whichever is later. The board directs employees to its e-Appeal Online system to prepare and file an appeal, with an appeal form and traditional submission routes also available. A written agreement to attempt alternative dispute resolution before a timely appeal can extend that limit by another 30 days, to 60 days. The ordinary appeal clock should not be substituted for a whistleblower or discrimination deadline.

The board describes an individual right of action appeal for a covered personnel action allegedly taken because of whistleblowing, even when the action would not otherwise be directly appealable. Its guidance directs covered employees, former employees and applicants seeking this whistleblower corrective-action route to file a prohibited-personnel-practice complaint with the Office of Special Counsel using Form OSC-14. Special counsel’s complaint page offers its Online Filing Portal and an option to download Form OSC-14 and email it for processing. The regulations permit the individual right of action appeal at any time after 120 days from the filing of that complaint if special counsel has not notified the employee it will seek corrective action. If special counsel instead sends written notice that it is ending its investigation, the appeal generally must be filed within 65 days after the notice is issued. If the employee shows that the notice arrived more than five days after it was issued, an appeal must be filed within 60 days after receipt. Employees in Schedule Policy/Career are the exception to this route: OPM says their employing agencies enforce whistleblower protections instead of the Office of Special Counsel.

For a federal workplace discrimination complaint, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance generally requires contacting an agency equal employment opportunity counselor within 45 days of the discrimination or the effective date of a discriminatory personnel action. An employee needs the route that matches the claim and the actual appointment; a misconduct complaint alone should not be assumed to preserve an employment appeal deadline.

A prosecutor’s departure does not decide an officer’s liability

In the January 2026 Reuters account, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said there was no basis for a criminal civil rights investigation of the January 7 shooting at that time. The Trump administration and state officials disputed the circumstances of the January 7 shooting, Reuters reported. Justice Department guidance explains that a criminal civil rights prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 242 requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a willful violation, not merely proof that a constitutional right was violated. The department describes willfulness as intentionally engaging in unlawful conduct while knowing it is wrong or unlawful; mistake, fear, misperception or poor judgment alone does not meet that requirement. That demanding standard helps explain why public outrage or the number of resignations cannot settle whether an officer can be prosecuted. It does not, by itself, establish that a particular officer met or failed the standard.

Federal agents were involved in three shootings of Minnesotans that winter: fatal shootings on January 7 and 24, and a shooting on January 14. Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension said on February 16, 2026, that the FBI had refused it access to evidence in the January 24 shooting and that it had renewed its requests for evidence in the other two. Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said federal prosecutors had turned over previously withheld evidence, including hard drives with statements and body camera video from the two fatal shootings, and the SUV from the January 7 shooting, The Associated Press reported on July 13, 2026. Federal agencies also shared evidence from the January 24 and January 14 shootings, MPR News reported. At that stage, Moriarty declined to provide a timeline for decisions on criminal charges and said any announcement would be public. Evidence sharing is an investigative step, not a charging decision or a finding of guilt. On October 1, 2026, FOX 9 reported that state investigators were still reviewing the two fatal shootings and that neither case had a final charging decision. In May 2026, Minnesota charged ICE agent Christian Castro with four felony assault counts related to the January 14 shooting. The county attorney’s September 17 update reported that Castro had appeared in state court and faced four counts of second-degree assault and one count of falsely reporting a crime.

A resignation can expose a serious conflict inside government while leaving the legal merits of that conflict unresolved.