Former Senator Kyrsten Sinema Faces ‘Alienation of Affection’ Lawsuit Amid Affair Allegations

January 16, 2026

Former U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema, once one of Washington’s most unconventional political figures, is facing renewed public scrutiny after a civil lawsuit filed in North Carolina alleging she played a central role in the collapse of a long-term marriage. The case surged into national and international headlines this week after Sinema’s legal team successfully moved to shift the lawsuit from state to federal court, a procedural step that has amplified attention around the rarely used legal claim at the heart of the dispute.

The lawsuit was filed by Heather Ammel, the ex-wife of Matthew Ammel — a former Senate staffer and head of security for Sinema — and seeks at least $75,000 in damages under North Carolina’s “alienation of affection” statute. The claim alleges that Sinema knowingly and willfully interfered in the Ammels’ 14-year marriage through an alleged romantic relationship with her security chief.

Former Senator Kyrsten Sinema Faces ‘Alienation of Affection’ Lawsuit Amid Affair Allegations

Details of the Alleged Affair

According to court filings, Heather Ammel claims that Sinema pursued an intimate relationship with Matthew Ammel while he was still married, ultimately contributing to the breakdown of the couple’s marriage. The complaint alleges that Sinema used her position of power and proximity to Ammel to foster a personal relationship that went beyond professional boundaries.

Among the more sensational allegations included in the lawsuit are claims that Sinema encouraged the use of MDMA for what the filing describes as “psychedelic experiences” shared with Ammel, and that she provided him with expensive gifts. Those gifts allegedly included tickets to high-profile concerts, specifically performances by U2 and Taylor Swift, which the plaintiff argues were part of an effort to deepen the personal bond between the two.

The lawsuit does not accuse Sinema of any criminal wrongdoing. Instead, it focuses on civil liability, arguing that her actions intentionally undermined the marriage and caused emotional and financial harm to the plaintiff.

---

Legal Implications in North Carolina

The case hinges on North Carolina’s “alienation of affection” law — a statute that has been abolished in most U.S. states but remains enforceable in a small handful, including North Carolina.

Under this law, a spouse may sue a third party for damages if they can demonstrate three core elements: that a genuine marriage with love and affection existed, that the affection was alienated, and that the defendant’s conduct was a controlling or effective cause of that alienation.

Legal experts note that while such cases are uncommon, they are not unheard of in North Carolina. Successful plaintiffs have, in some instances, been awarded substantial damages, particularly when evidence suggests deliberate interference in a marital relationship.

In this case, Heather Ammel is seeking at least $75,000 — a figure that meets the threshold for federal diversity jurisdiction, a key reason the case was moved to federal court earlier this week. The transfer has placed the lawsuit on a larger legal stage and intensified media coverage.

---

Why the Case Is Trending Now

Although the lawsuit was initially filed in late 2025, it gained widespread attention on January 15 and 16, 2026, when Sinema’s attorneys requested that it be moved to federal court. That request, and the judge’s subsequent approval, triggered a surge in online searches and media reporting.

The timing also coincides with broader public interest in how powerful political figures navigate post-office careers and personal accountability. The unusual nature of the claim — combined with Sinema’s national profile — has made the case a focal point of political and cultural discussion.

---

Sinema’s Career Post-Senate

Sinema left the U.S. Senate in January 2025 after serving one term representing Arizona. Originally elected as a Democrat before switching to Independent status, she declined to seek re-election, citing frustration with partisan politics and what she described as a desire to pursue policy work outside elected office.

Since leaving Congress, Sinema has transitioned into the private sector. She currently works as a lobbyist and senior advisor for the international law firm Hogan Lovells, where she advises clients on regulatory strategy, public policy, and government relations.

Her post-Senate role has already drawn scrutiny from ethics watchdogs due to the firm’s extensive involvement in federal policy matters — a common but controversial path for former lawmakers.

---

A Complex Public Legacy

Sinema’s political career was marked by contradiction and controversy. She was the first openly bisexual person elected to the U.S. Senate and cultivated a reputation as a centrist willing to work across party lines. She played a pivotal role in several bipartisan deals, including infrastructure and budget negotiations, often drawing criticism from both progressives and conservatives.

Supporters praised her independence and deal-making skills, while critics accused her of opacity and political opportunism. The current lawsuit adds a personal dimension to a public legacy that was already polarizing.

---

Current Status of the Lawsuit

As of January 16, 2026, the case is in its early stages in federal court. No ruling has been made on the merits of the allegations, and the court has not yet determined whether the case will proceed to trial or be dismissed on procedural grounds.

Sinema’s legal team has not issued a public statement addressing the specific claims outlined in the lawsuit. Likewise, Sinema herself has not commented publicly since the case gained renewed attention this week.

Heather Ammel’s attorneys maintain that the lawsuit is about accountability, not politics, and argue that the law exists precisely to address situations where a third party is alleged to have intentionally destroyed a marriage.

---

What Happens Next

Legal analysts say the next phase will likely involve motions challenging jurisdiction, admissibility of evidence, and whether the plaintiff can meet the high burden of proof required under North Carolina law. Discovery, if permitted, could bring additional details into the public record.

For now, the case stands as a rare intersection of personal relationships, political power, and an antiquated but still potent legal doctrine — one that continues to spark debate about its relevance in modern America.