Filed Date: Jan. 19, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case, brought by a civil servant and employee of the Department of Homeland Security, alleges that termination of Plaintiff’s employment was due to private statements made on a date where Plaintiff was secretly recorded. Plaintiff filed this suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that he was unlawfully filmed during a private date, and the statements he made, which constituted his own personal opinions, were later weaponized by DHS as the primary basis for terminating Plaintiff’s employment.
On January 21, 2025, after chatting on online dating app Bumble, Plaintiff and Defendant Doe. During the date, Plaintiff and Defendant Doe spoke about about politics, with Plaintiff expressing negative opinions about Secretary Noem. Plaintiff was recorded with knowledge or consent through a hidden camera on Defendant Doe’s body and second camera placed on a chair across the aisle at the bar. Defendant Doe’s footage was On February 3, 2025, a video of clips of Plaintiff talking to Defendant Doe, along with an article claiming that Plaintiff planned to defy Secretary Noem’s directives, was posted online. The video posted included a title page that said “OMG Investigates: Dating the Deep State.”
DHS placed Plaintiff on administrative leave on January 30, 2025. DHS issued a proposed notice of removal to Plaintiff on April 3, 2025, alleging that Plaintiff had failed to follow international travel policy and stating that continuing to employ Plaintiff would create a risk that Plaintiff would ignore instructions, causing damages to DHS operations. However, the Notice on Proposed Removal cited no evidence that Plaintiff had ever engaged in such behavior.
On January 19, 2026, Plaintiff filed suit in the United States District for the District of Columbia. The case was assigned to District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Plaintiff named Secretary of DHS Kristi Noem and DHS as defendants (“Government Defendants), alleging that both parties violated Plaintiff’s First and Fifth Amendments. Plaintiff also brought suit against Defendant Doe. Plaintiff alleges that Government Defendants violated Plaintiff’s First and Fifth Amendment rights. Against Defendant Doe, Plaintiff brings fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit fraudulent misrepresentation, tortious interference with employment relationship, and violation of the Wire Taps Act, which prohibits recording of a communication for the purpose of committing a tortious act. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, as well as backpay from Government Defendants and damages from Defendant Doe.
On March 30, 2026, Defendant Doe filed a motion to dismiss.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Allison Opheim (3/31/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72158550/parties/wright-v-noem/
Sullivan, Emmet G. (District of Columbia)
Moss, Bradley Prescott (District of Columbia)
Zaid, Mark Steven (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72158550/wright-v-noem/
Last updated March 31, 2026, 9:55 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 19, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Private Plaintiff
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:26-cv-00144
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Discrimination Area:
Content/viewpoint discrimination
Case Summary of Wright v. Noem, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47726/ (last updated 3/31/2026).