Gabriel Whitley Sues U.S. Government, DOJ, and Prosecutors for Constitutional Violations and Malicious Prosecution

Gabe Whitley sues the the U.S. Government and the DOJ.

In a bold legal move, Gabriel Whitley, a former Republican congressional candidate for Indiana’s Seventh Congressional District, has filed a federal lawsuit against the United States government, the Department of Justice (DOJ), Assistant U.S. Attorney Tiffany J. Preston, and former U.S. Attorney Zachary A. Myers. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleges a coordinated campaign of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and civil conspiracy aimed at suppressing Whitley’s political activities. Whitley claims the defendants violated his First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, causing severe harm to his reputation, liberty, and livelihood.

Background: A Political Candidate Targeted

Whitley, a resident of Indianapolis, ran in the 2024 Republican primary to challenge incumbent Democratic Representative André Carson. According to the complaint, the defendants targeted Whitley due to his political candidacy and conservative platform, orchestrating a baseless prosecution to derail his campaign. The lawsuit names Preston and Myers in their individual and official capacities, alongside the DOJ and the United States, as responsible for a series of actions that Whitley describes as politically motivated and unconstitutional.

Central to the case is Whitley’s allegation that Myers, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana, acted out of a conflict of interest tied to his relationship with Abdul-Hakim Shabazz, a politically connected attorney and commentator. Whitley claims Shabazz, who he describes as a “radical Muslim Democrat” posing as a Republican, initiated frivolous lawsuits against him and collaborated with others to fabricate a dossier accusing Whitley of campaign finance violations. This dossier, Whitley alleges, was the foundation for a federal investigation and prosecution that lacked probable cause.

Allegations of Misconduct and Coercion

The complaint details a series of events that Whitley argues constitute egregious violations of his constitutional rights:

1. Baseless Investigation and Search: In 2023, Shabazz, with assistance from Gabrielle Kendall, prepared a 58-page dossier alleging Whitley falsified donor identities and campaign contributions. Whitley claims Myers forwarded this dossier to the FBI without verifying its accuracy, triggering an investigation driven by political bias rather than evidence. On July 17, 2024, FBI agents searched Whitley’s Indianapolis home, seizing electronic devices in what he alleges was an unreasonable search lacking probable cause, violating his Fourth Amendment rights.

2. Coerced Plea Deal: Following the search, Whitley alleges FBI agents, acting under the direction of Preston and Myers, threatened his life to pressure him into accepting a plea deal for making false statements to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The plea, announced on January 9, 2025, was involuntary, according to Whitley, and constituted a violation of his Fifth Amendment due process rights. He has also filed a separate lawsuit against the Indianapolis FBI Field Office for these alleged threats.

3. Political Retaliation: Whitley asserts that the prosecution was retaliation for his political speech and candidacy, violating his First Amendment rights. He claims the defendants sought to protect Carson and Shabazz’s political interests by undermining his campaign, chilling his political activities, and damaging his reputation.

4. Abuse of Process and Conspiracy: The lawsuit accuses Preston and Myers of abusing their prosecutorial authority to advance personal and political agendas, including supporting Shabazz’s lawsuits against Whitley. Whitley alleges the defendants conspired with Shabazz and others to fabricate evidence and orchestrate a malicious prosecution, causing him significant emotional distress, financial losses, and reputational harm.

Legal Claims and Relief Sought

Whitley’s complaint outlines six causes of action, invoking constitutional protections and federal statutes:

• Fourth Amendment Violation: Unreasonable search and seizure during the FBI’s July 2024 search of his home.

• Fifth Amendment Violation: Coercion of an involuntary plea deal, depriving him of due process.

• First Amendment Violation: Retaliation for his political speech and candidacy.

• Abuse of Process: Misuse of legal processes to harm Whitley’s campaign and reputation.

• Civil Conspiracy: A coordinated effort to violate his constitutional rights.

• Malicious Prosecution: Pursuing baseless charges without probable cause.

Whitley seeks compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. He requests a court declaration that the defendants violated his constitutional rights, an injunction to prevent further retaliation, and the expungement of his criminal record from the coerced plea. Representing himself pro se, Whitley has also demanded a jury trial.

Broader Implications

This lawsuit raises serious questions about the integrity of federal prosecutorial power and its potential for abuse in politically charged contexts. Whitley’s allegations of a conspiracy involving high-ranking DOJ officials, the FBI, and local political figures could have far-reaching implications if substantiated. The case also highlights the challenges faced by political outsiders like Whitley, who claim to be targeted by entrenched interests to suppress their voices.

Legal experts note that Whitley’s reliance on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) may face hurdles, given the high bar for proving constitutional violations by federal officials and the government’s sovereign immunity protections. However, the detailed allegations of coercion, political bias, and abuse of process could draw significant scrutiny to the DOJ’s actions in the Southern District of Indiana.

Context and Public Reaction

As of April 22, 2025, the case is in its early stages, with no assigned case number yet. Whitley’s claims have sparked debate on platforms like X, where some users express support for his fight against alleged government overreach, while others question the validity of his accusations against Shabazz and the DOJ. Posts on X suggest polarized reactions, with conservatives rallying behind Whitley’s narrative of political persecution and others dismissing the lawsuit as speculative.

The lawsuit also intersects with broader discussions about campaign finance enforcement and the role of federal agencies in policing political activity. Whitley’s case could shine a light on how allegations of minor violations, such as false FEC statements, are investigated and prosecuted, particularly when they involve candidates challenging powerful incumbents.

Conclusion

Gabriel Whitley’s lawsuit against the U.S. government, the DOJ, and its attorneys is a high-stakes legal battle with significant implications for constitutional law, political freedom, and prosecutorial accountability. By alleging a politically motivated conspiracy to silence his candidacy, Whitley is taking on formidable opponents in a quest for justice. As the case progresses, it will likely attract attention from legal scholars, political observers, and the public, all eager to see whether Whitley’s claims of abuse and retribution hold up in court. For now, the former candidate stands firm, demanding accountability for what he describes as a grave injustice that cost him his political aspirations and personal well-being.