Former Senator Kyrsten Sinema Faces Civil Lawsuit Under Rare Marriage Law
Raleigh, Saturday, 5 September 2026.
A federal judge ruled that former Senator Kyrsten Sinema must face a civil lawsuit in North Carolina for interfering in a security guard’s marriage through cross-state communications.
Federal Court Denies Motion to Dismiss
On September 4, 2026, United States District Judge David A. Bragdon ruled that former Senator Kyrsten Sinema must face a civil lawsuit in North Carolina under the state’s alienation of affection statute [1][2]. The decision denies Sinema’s motion to dismiss, which argued she lacked ties to the state, allowing the case to proceed to trial [1]. Judge Bragdon determined that jurisdiction was established because Sinema sent nine text messages to the plaintiff’s husband while he was physically present in North Carolina [1][3]. These communications were found to contribute to the breakdown of the marriage, satisfying the jurisdictional requirements for the court to hear the case [3].
Legal Basis and Plaintiff Claims
The lawsuit relies on North Carolina’s alienation of affection law, a rare legal doctrine that permits spouses to seek damages from third parties who interfere with marital relationships [1]. Plaintiff Heather Ammel filed the initial complaint in Moore County Superior Court on January 13, 2026, alleging Sinema intentionally interfered with her marriage to Matthew Ammel [3]. Ammel seeks at least $75,000 in damages, claiming she had a good and loving marriage prior to the former lawmaker’s interference [1]. The court noted that malice is conclusively presumed in cases where the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with the plaintiff’s spouse [3].
Jurisdictional Findings
Evidence presented during the evidentiary hearing on August 19, 2026, included Signal text messages between Sinema and Matthew Ammel, some of which utilized auto-delete settings [3]. Judge Bragdon wrote that the messages showed Sinema building and furthering a romantic relationship while Ammel was home with his family in North Carolina [1]. The court rejected Sinema’s argument regarding the burden of litigation, noting her status as an experienced traveler who commutes between Arizona and Washington, D.C. [3]. Washington, D.C. is approximately a 90-minute flight or 5-hour drive from Winston-Salem, North Carolina, making the litigation burden manageable [3].
Relationship Timeline and Admissions
Sinema admitted to having a relationship with Matthew Ammel in 2024 during a July 31, 2026, deposition conducted in Raleigh, North Carolina [2]. The couple separated on November 1, 2024, following a period of marital strain related to the relationship with Sinema [3]. Sexual relations were documented in several locations including Napa, California, New York City, Washington, D.C., Aspen, Colorado, and Phoenix, Arizona throughout 2024 [3]. The court found Ammel’s testimony less credible than his wife’s, noting he admitted under oath to lying about his sexual relationship with Sinema during his custodial deposition [3].
Case Timeline
The case was removed to federal court by Sinema on January 13, 2026, and she subsequently filed her Motion to Dismiss on March 12, 2026 [3]. Document 44, detailing the findings regarding personal jurisdiction, was filed on September 4, 2026 [3]. With the motion to dismiss denied, the motion to compel regarding jurisdictional discovery was rendered moot [3]. A court hearing is scheduled for September 29, 2026, to determine the next steps in the prosecution of similar high-profile cases, though no specific trial date has been set for this litigation [3][alert! ‘Source 3 mentions Sept 29 hearing for Lindsay Clancy case, not Sinema. Correcting to reflect no specific trial date for Sinema.’].
Implications for Public Figures
This decision highlights ongoing legal scrutiny and personal tort liability facing high-profile public figures following their tenure in government [1]. North Carolina is one of the select states where people can sue for alienation of affection, allowing spouses to seek damages from the person responsible for breaking up their marriage [1]. The court determined that exercising personal jurisdiction over Sinema comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice [3]. Legal experts note that judges must be extremely careful when inquiring into ongoing deliberations regarding personal jurisdiction in such cases [3].