Listen to the article
Former Senator Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Affair with Bodyguard
Former Senator Kyrsten Sinema could face significant financial penalties following a lawsuit filed by the estranged wife of her former bodyguard under a rarely used 19th-century law. The lawsuit, filed in North Carolina, alleges Sinema engaged in an affair that destroyed the marriage between Matthew Ammel and his wife Heather.
The legal action relies on North Carolina’s “alienation of affection” law, a statute currently recognized in only six U.S. states. Such laws permit jilted spouses to sue third parties they believe intentionally damaged their marriages. The complaint seeks $25,000 in damages for “intentional and malicious interference” in the Ammel marriage, characterizing Sinema’s conduct as “willful and wanton.”
To succeed, Heather Ammel must clear a high legal threshold. She must demonstrate that the marriage had genuine affection before Sinema’s involvement, that this affection was significantly diminished or destroyed, and that Sinema directly caused the destruction of the marital relationship.
The complaint meticulously outlines the timeline of the relationship between Sinema and Matthew Ammel, detailing how their professional connection as senator and security detail member evolved into a romantic partnership. According to court documents, Sinema sent suggestive messages to Matthew over Signal, an encrypted messaging app, months before the Ammels formally separated.
One message cited in the complaint shows Sinema writing to Matthew in June 2024: “I keep waking up during my sleep and reaching over for your arms to hold me.” The lawsuit notes this was approximately when Matthew allegedly stopped wearing his wedding ring. Other alleged messages include Sinema offering to “work on” Ammel’s back with a Theragun and suggestions about bringing MDMA on a work trip, though Sinema claims she has “no recollection” of these exchanges.
The relationships among the three were complex. Prior to and after the alleged affair began, Heather Ammel participated in social activities with her husband and Sinema. In 2023, she traveled with them to Las Vegas for a U2 concert where they reportedly enjoyed Dom Pérignon wine in Cindy McCain’s suite. In October 2024, all three attended a Taylor Swift concert in Miami, supposedly out of “concern” for Ammel’s children.
That same month, according to the complaint, Heather confronted Sinema directly by responding to one of her Signal messages: “Are you having an affair with my husband? You took a married man away from his family.” Sinema has acknowledged receiving this message.
While Sinema has admitted to her relationship with her former bodyguard, her legal team argues the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. They contend the affair occurred “exclusively outside” North Carolina’s boundaries. Sinema states their relationship became “romantic and intimate” beginning in May 2024 during a trip to Sonoma, California, and that they were subsequently “physically intimate” in Phoenix, Aspen, and New York City – but not in North Carolina before the Ammels’ marriage dissolved.
Although such lawsuits have become increasingly uncommon in modern times, North Carolina has seen some notable judgments. In 2010, a jury awarded plaintiff Cynthia Shackelford $9 million in an “alienation of affection” case against her husband’s alleged mistress. More recently, in 2018, a Durham County judge ordered approximately $8.8 million in damages to be paid to a business owner who claimed another man stole his wife and damaged his company.
The judge overseeing the Sinema case has ordered Heather Ammel to respond to Sinema’s motion to dismiss by mid-April. Meanwhile, Matthew Ammel has formally filed for divorce from his wife earlier this year.
Sinema, who served in the U.S. Senate from 2019 to 2025, made headlines in 2022 when she left the Democratic Party to become an independent, a move characterized as a significant setback for Democrats who had counted on her vote in the closely divided chamber.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
12 Comments
While the allegations are certainly serious, it’s important to remember that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I hope the legal process can shed light on the truth and provide a fair resolution to this complex situation.
That’s a fair and balanced perspective. Maintaining the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of the justice system, even in high-profile cases like this one.
This case highlights the complexities that can arise when personal relationships intersect with public office. It will be crucial for the court to carefully examine the evidence and apply the law in a fair and impartial manner.
Agreed. The intersection of personal lives and political power dynamics is always a sensitive and challenging area to navigate. A thoughtful, evidence-based approach is essential.
The use of this 19th-century law in a modern political context is certainly novel. It will be fascinating to see how the courts interpret and apply the standards of proof, given the evolving social norms and dynamics at play.
Absolutely. This case could set important precedents for the application of such antiquated laws in contemporary settings, particularly when high-profile public figures are involved.
While the allegations are concerning, I would encourage everyone to approach this with an open mind and let the facts speak for themselves. It’s important to avoid rushing to conclusions or engaging in partisan rhetoric.
Well said. Maintaining objectivity and allowing the legal system to run its course is the best way to arrive at a fair and balanced understanding of the situation.
While the allegations are quite serious, I would caution against rushing to judgment before all the facts come to light. These types of cases can be highly contentious, and it’s important to let the legal process play out.
Agreed. It’s prudent to withhold conclusions until more information becomes available through the legal proceedings. Premature speculation rarely leads to a balanced understanding of complex situations.
This is certainly a high-profile case with a lot of legal nuance around the alienation of affection law. It will be interesting to see how the court rules on the threshold required for damages, given the complexity of proving causation for the end of the marriage.
You raise a good point. Establishing a direct causal link between Sinema’s actions and the breakdown of the marriage will be a significant hurdle for the plaintiff to overcome.