Sinema Faces Lawsuit Over Affair with Ex-Security Guard

Former Senator Kyrsten Sinema is currently involved in a lawsuit filed by Heather Ammel, the wife of her former security guard and boyfriend, Matthew Ammel. Sinema has acknowledged having an affair with Ammel during her time as a Democratic senator representing Arizona. Heather Ammel’s legal action revolves around the tort of alienation of affection, which many may view as somewhat antiquated in today’s more open society. It’s interesting, really, as I recently started teaching a torts class, and alienation of affection often comes up as a contentious topic at the boundary of tort law and constitutional principles.

Historically, many states imposed moral penalties for actions like adultery and homosexuality. But, I think we can agree that as societal values evolved, many of those legal constraints have diminished. Still, a spouse retains the right to initiate a civil lawsuit against an outsider who disrupts the marriage through infidelity.

This whole notion of “mental analgesia” can be traced back to the inception of tort liability. Yet, astonishingly, 42 states have since done away with this tort, leaving only Hawaii, North Carolina, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah as exceptions.

Interestingly, back in the day, the tort encompassed two main breaches: temptation and seduction. Seduction, for instance, involved actions that persuaded a wife to abandon her husband through deceit or duress. Meanwhile, temptation merely required evidence of an extramarital affair involving one spouse and another party.

The foundational issues surrounding this tort have long drawn criticism, often perceived as a remnant of the outdated view of wives as property of their husbands. Moreover, significant constitutional questions linger about whether it’s acceptable to hold someone liable for consensual sexual relationships.

This concept was highlighted in some of England’s earliest legal instances, like Winsmore v. Greenbank from 1745, where the court contended that a mistress had seduced a married woman, effectively infringing on her husband’s rights. Quite the courtroom drama, I suppose.

However, many today argue that such laws are both outdated and potentially abusive. In fact, North Carolina has become a focal point in this lawsuit. Sinema’s legal team has sought to transfer the case to federal court, contending that no sexual activity occurred within the state’s jurisdiction.

During a deposition, Sinema described the inception of the affair—citing a kiss with Ammel at a friend’s home in California as the starting point. She recounted, “We were outside. Matt kissed me. We went into the house and had sex.”

She also recalled intimate encounters at a wedding in New York City and in multiple locations such as Washington, D.C., Arizona, and Colorado, which further complicate jurisdictional arguments in the case.

There’s an ongoing debate about whether the lack of sexual activity in North Carolina means the courts there should refuse to hear the case or if, conversely, the harm caused by the marriage breakdown is sufficient to establish jurisdiction.

Sides appear to agree on the existence of marital discord. Reference was made to a photo and texts that seem to indicate a deeper, perhaps more personal connection between Sinema and Ammel. For instance, after Heather discovered the affair, she found a message from Sinema stating: “I hope you’re okay today. I’m thinking of you. I’m with you…”

Heather Ammel’s response was to reach out to her husband, pleading with him to terminate the affair, branding Sinema as “insidious” and intent on ruining her family.

The couple ultimately separated in late 2024 and finalized their divorce in early 2026. An evidentiary hearing is anticipated on August 19.

While the Supreme Court has invalidated the criminalization of same-sex marriage, the tort of alienation of affection has yet to face similar constitutional challenges. I wonder whether that will change soon…

It’s worth noting that unlike criminal implications on consensual acts, this tort aims to address the damages caused to a third party. After all, Heather Ammel had her own expectations and commitments within her marriage.

You know, perspectives have shifted drastically. Nowadays, many might contend that the true harm originates from the betrayal within the marriage itself rather than from a third party’s involvement. If partners falter in their vows, does it not often signify the marriage’s inherent issues?

Certainly, this case poses intriguing questions regarding the “heart medicine” damages, challenging whether states can permit individuals to seek recovery for this type of emotional distress. It’s not just a matter of punishing infidelity; it encompasses the experience of alienation and emotional harm to spouses.

This turmoil could indeed turn out to be a significant chapter in Sinema’s legacy. The real question isn’t just about the morality of her actions anymore—it’s about whether such actions are legally actionable today.

As torts continue to evolve, similar transformations can be observed in areas like defamation laws that used to place blame on women for perceived infidelity.

And while some moral laws have been abolished due to constitutional interpretation, the concept of alienation of affection still resonates as a deeply ingrained moral issue rooted in traditional values. After all, the age-old biblical adage in Proverbs rings true: “The wicked act deceitfully, but righteousness brings a sure reward.”

The lingering question remains: can the so-called “righteous” individuals seek reparation from the “wickedness” of others?