A federal judge in the Middle District of North Carolina has ruled that the court has personal jurisdiction over former United States Senator Kyrsten Sinema in a Sinema alienation of affection suit brought by Heather Ammel, rejecting Sinema’s motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. Judge David Bragdon issued the ruling on the basis that nine Signal messages sent by Sinema to Matthew Ammel while he was physically present in North Carolina were sufficient to establish purposeful availment of that forum.
How the Case Reached Federal Court
Heather Ammel filed the complaint in Moore County Superior Court on 30 September 2025, carrying case number 25CV001930-620. Sinema’s lawyers removed the matter to federal court in January 2026. The 15-page complaint alleges trips, concerts, and drug use including MDMA, according to The Center Square.
The underlying facts are largely undisputed in outline. Heather and Matthew Ammel married in 2010 and from 2014 lived in Whispering Pines, North Carolina, with their three children. Matthew Ammel was hired onto Sinema’s security detail in April 2022, at which point the couple were still married and living together in North Carolina. He met Sinema in August 2022, following his retirement from the military.
According to Sinema’s own declaration, the relationship became romantic in late May 2024, with a first physical encounter on 27 May in Sonoma, California, and later meetings in New York City, Washington D.C., Aspen, and Phoenix. Tucson.com reports that Sinema’s testimony placed the start of the affair at an Airbnb in Napa, California. Approximately five months before the couple separated in November 2024, Matthew Ammel stopped wearing his wedding ring, around the time he was named a defence and national security fellow on Sinema’s staff.
The Sinema Alienation of Affection Jurisdiction Analysis
Alienation of affection requires a plaintiff to prove: first, that a marriage existed with genuine love and affection; second, that such love and affection was alienated; and third, that the defendant’s malicious acts caused that loss. Where a defendant has engaged in sexual intercourse with the plaintiff’s spouse, malice is conclusively presumed under North Carolina law.
Sinema argued, as reported at the time of her dismissal motion, that virtually all romantic communications with Matthew Ammel occurred while he was outside North Carolina, and that the only arguably romantic message transmitted to him while he was in the state was sent in mid-October 2024, by which point he had already moved out of the marital home.
Judge Bragdon rejected that framing. Flight records in the court order show that on 3 October 2024, Matthew Ammel departed Phoenix at approximately 6:22 a.m. and arrived in North Carolina at around 3:31 p.m. Sinema sent him a message at 9:57 p.m. that evening. Because both parties had their phones configured to delete messages eight hours after being read, and because the court found it improbable that Matthew Ammel, as Sinema’s employee and developing romantic partner, would delay reading her messages, the court inferred he read the message shortly after receipt, placing him in North Carolina at the time it was sent.
Credibility was pivotal. The court found Sinema’s testimony on several key matters not credible, with portions of her declaration contradicted by her evidence at the hearing. Heather Ammel’s testimony was accepted as credible and corroborated. The court found it ‘implausible that Mr. Ammel, a married man and mere security guard to Ms. Sinema, would have kissed his boss, a United States Senator, with no prior flirting or invitation.’
On the jurisdictional question, Judge Bragdon held that North Carolina was the ‘focal point’ of the alleged tortious conduct. Sinema knew Matthew Ammel was married, lived in North Carolina, and had children there. The nine messages, viewed collectively, were found to develop and further the intimate relationship in a way that directly contributed to the loss of marital affection, and some, standing alone, constituted acts giving rise to the claim. The state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute was reinforced by the Court of Appeals’ reasoning in Malecek v. Williams (2017), which recognised North Carolina’s aim to deter conduct that causes people to break their marriage vows.
Sinema is now a Distinguished Professor of Practice in the School of Social Work at Arizona State University and a member of the Global Regulatory and IP practice group at Hogan Lovells Cadwalader in Washington D.C. The court noted that Washington D.C. is a 90-minute flight or five-hour drive from Winston-Salem, and that litigating in North Carolina would not impose a significant burden.
The claim seeks at least $25,000 plus punitive damages under North Carolina’s alienation-of-affection law. North Carolina is one of six US states that still recognise the tort; The Center Square identifies the others as Hawaii, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah. Last fiscal year, North Carolina courts received 150 alienation-of-affection filings. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-13, any such claim must be commenced within three years of the defendant’s last relevant act, and that conduct must have preceded the permanent separation of the spouses.
Subject to any onward challenge, the case now proceeds in the Middle District of North Carolina. Whether the October anniversary trip and the nine Signal messages will ultimately satisfy the substantive elements of the tort at trial remains the question the parties must now litigate.
