Drooid Logo
Back to story perspectives

Full Breakdown

Former Senator Kyrsten Sinema Sued Under North Carolina Homewrecker Law

9/5/2026, 4:05:28 AM

Legal Action and Judge’s Decision

A North Carolina judge ruled that former U.S. senator Kyrsten Sinema can be sued under the state’s “alienation of affection” statute. U.S. District Judge David A. Bragdon found that nine text messages Sinema sent to security-detail member Matthew Ammel while he was in North Carolina gave the state jurisdiction, rejecting her claim of no connection to the state. The lawsuit was filed by Ammel’s ex-wife, Heather Ammel, seeking financial damages.

Relationship Timeline and Allegations

Heather Ammel alleges that her marriage to Matthew Ammel was “good and loving” before Sinema’s involvement. According to the complaint, Ammel joined Sinema’s security team after retiring from the Army in 2022 and later worked as a national-security fellow in her Senate office while continuing as a campaign bodyguard. In early 2024, Heather Ammel discovered “romantic and lascivious” messages exchanged on the Signal app. Sinema testified in a July deposition that the relationship became sexual on May 27, 2024, during a trip to Napa, California, and that subsequent encounters occurred in New York, Washington, Colorado and Arizona, but not in North Carolina.

Legal Context

North Carolina is among a small group of states that allow a jilted spouse to sue a third party for “alienation of affection,” seeking compensation for the breakup of a marriage. The statute has been invoked in a handful of recent cases, but its application to a former federal legislator is unprecedented.

Official Responses

Sinema’s attorney, Steven Epstein, did not respond to a request for comment. The judge’s opinion emphasized that the text messages demonstrated sufficient contact with the state to satisfy jurisdictional requirements.

Potential Impact

If the lawsuit proceeds, it could set a precedent for applying state “homewrecker” laws to public officials with limited ties to the jurisdiction. The case also highlights how personal conduct can intersect with legal exposure for former members of Congress.