A federal judge has cleared the way for former U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema to be sued under North Carolina's alienation of affection law, ruling that nine romantic text messages she sent her married bodyguard while he was home with his family gave the state jurisdiction over the case.
U.S. District Judge David A. Bragdon denied Sinema's motion to dismiss the civil complaint brought by Heather Ammel, the ex-wife of Matthew Ammel, a former member of Sinema's security detail. The ruling rejected Sinema's central argument that she had no meaningful connection to North Carolina and that the case belonged elsewhere.
The jurisdictional question turned on a narrow but telling set of facts. Sinema's legal team had argued that the affair did not take place in North Carolina, and that the state therefore had no authority over her. Judge Bragdon disagreed. As Reason reported, the judge found that nine text messages Sinema sent to Matthew Ammel while he was physically present in North Carolina were enough to establish the state's reach.
The judge's reasoning cut to the heart of how alienation of affection works under North Carolina law. In his ruling, Judge Bragdon wrote:
"These messages, considered together, show Ms. Sinema building and furthering a romantic relationship with Mr. Ammel, invading the marriage not just while he was away on trips with her but while he was home with his family in North Carolina."
North Carolina is one of a handful of states that still permit alienation of affection lawsuits, a legal mechanism that allows a jilted spouse to seek financial damages from a third party the spouse blames for destroying the marriage. The concept dates back centuries in common law, and most states have abolished it. But in North Carolina, it remains a live cause of action, and AP News confirmed that Heather Ammel's suit seeks at least $75,000 in damages.
The underlying facts are not in dispute. Sinema herself acknowledged the relationship under oath. During a July deposition, the former senator described in detail how the affair began and where it continued over the course of 2024.
As Fox News reported, Sinema testified that the relationship turned sexual on May 27, 2024, during a trip to Napa, California. In her own words from the deposition:
"We were staying at an Airbnb in Napa, California. We were outside. Matt kissed me. We went inside and had sex."
Sexual encounters followed in New York City, Washington, D.C., Aspen, Colorado, and Phoenix. Sinema acknowledged knowing throughout that Ammel was married with three children. She was still serving in the U.S. Senate at the time.
The deposition also revealed the emotional texture of the relationship. One text message Sinema sent to Ammel, read aloud by Heather Ammel, said: "I hope your day was okay. Thinking of you. I am with you. I keep waking up during my sleep and reaching over for your arms to hold me." As CLN previously reported, Sinema's sworn testimony about the affair across five cities formed a central pillar of the plaintiff's case before the jurisdictional ruling ever came down.
Matthew Ammel joined Sinema's security team after retiring from the Army in 2022. AP News reported that Sinema later gave him a national security fellow position in her Senate office, a detail that underscores the power dynamic at play. He went from protecting the senator to working directly under her authority, and then into a sexual relationship with her.
Heather Ammel's lawsuit paints a picture of a marriage that was functioning before Sinema entered the equation. The complaint alleges that she and Matthew Ammel had "a good and loving marriage" with "genuine love and affection" before Sinema interfered, pursuing Matthew Ammel despite knowing he was married. That language, drawn from the lawsuit itself, tracks the legal standard for alienation of affection claims in North Carolina, which require the plaintiff to show that a genuine marital bond existed and that a third party willfully destroyed it.
The Ammels' marriage lasted 14 years before it ended. Just The News reported that Sinema's legal team had pushed hard for dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the affair itself did not occur in North Carolina. An evidentiary hearing on the matter was held on August 19 before the judge issued his ruling.
Beyond the sexual relationship, the lawsuit contains a more unusual claim. Breitbart reported that Heather Ammel's complaint alleges Sinema asked Matthew Ammel to bring MDMA on a work trip so she could guide him through a psychedelic experience to treat his PTSD. Investigators have not publicly confirmed whether any criminal referral has been made in connection with this allegation, and no charges related to controlled substances have been filed against either party.
The MDMA claim adds a volatile dimension to a case already generating intense public interest. If proven, it could raise questions about a sitting senator's involvement with a Schedule I controlled substance. But at this stage, the allegation remains just that: an allegation in a civil complaint, unproven and contested.
Judge Bragdon's decision does not resolve the merits of Heather Ammel's claim. It means only that the case will proceed in a North Carolina federal court rather than being thrown out on jurisdictional grounds. Sinema will now have to mount a defense on the substance of the alienation of affection claim itself.
The legal stakes are real but bounded. Alienation of affection is a civil tort, not a criminal charge. Heather Ammel is seeking monetary damages, not imprisonment. But the reputational exposure for Sinema is considerable. Every detail of the affair, from the Napa Airbnb to the late-night text messages, is now part of the public court record. As CLN has covered, the judge's decision to greenlight the suit marked a turning point in a case that many expected Sinema's legal team to dispatch on procedural grounds.
For Sinema, the political calculus has already shifted. She chose not to seek reelection in 2024 after leaving the Democratic Party to become an independent. She no longer holds office. But the deposition testimony and court filings have placed her personal conduct squarely in the public record in a way that few former senators have experienced.
The case also highlights the continued vitality of alienation of affection laws in the states that still recognize them. Critics call these statutes archaic relics of a time when wives were treated as property. Defenders argue they provide a meaningful legal remedy for spouses whose marriages were deliberately targeted by outsiders. North Carolina courts have shown no appetite for abandoning the tort, and cases like this one test whether the doctrine can reach defendants with no physical presence in the state.
Political scandals involving extramarital affairs are hardly new in American public life. Other political figures have faced public fallout from similar revelations. What distinguishes the Sinema case is the combination of sworn testimony, a willing plaintiff, and a state law that gives the wronged spouse a courtroom.
Sinema's defense team will now have to contend with her own words. The deposition testimony is detailed, specific, and delivered under oath. The text messages are timestamped and geolocated. The plaintiff's legal theory is straightforward: Sinema knew Matthew Ammel was married, pursued him anyway, and the marriage fell apart. As CLN previously reported on Sinema's testimony ahead of the federal hearing, the factual record she created under oath may prove difficult to overcome at trial.
Investigators and the court will need to determine the full extent of the communications between Sinema and Matthew Ammel, whether additional messages beyond the nine cited by the judge played a role in the marriage's breakdown, and how the MDMA allegation fits into the broader factual picture. Authorities have not publicly addressed the controlled substance claim.
North Carolina's alienation of affection law exists for a reason: to hold accountable those who deliberately destroy a family. Whether that principle applies to a former United States senator will now be decided on the merits, not on a technicality.
