He noted that Sinema sent Ammel nine messages through the encrypted Signal app while he was physically at his family home in Whispering Pines, North Carolina, and that her testimony denying knowledge of his location was not credible. In other words, Sinema lied to the court. Those messages showed Sinema “invading the marriage not just while he was away on trips with her” but also while Ammel was home with his family.

Bad luck for Cin…sorry, Sinema. North Carolina is one of only six states where the alienation of affection tort remains on the books, allowing a spouse to seek damages from a third party whose malicious conduct destroys a marriage. I bet she didn’t know that.

The judge concluded 1) that because the relationship included sex, malice was conclusively presumed, 2) that plaintiff Heather Ammel was injured at her marital residence, and 3) that the constitutional test for personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant was therefor met. Heather Ammel sued in state court in September 2025 seeking at least $75,000 in damages.

Phone records showed Matthew Ammel to be in North Carolina more than 60% of the year the affair developed, the order says.

Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh has a fascinating post about the alienation of affections tort. He writes in part,

“In the discussion of the Kyrsten Sinema alienation of affections case, several commenters took roughly the following view: Spouses have promised fidelity to each other, and if they break those promises, they are at fault towards the other spouse. But one spouse’s lover hasn’t made any promises to the other spouse. The lover therefore can’t be said to be at fault.

“I don’t think that view is right, and I don’t think it fits the norm for how our legal system treats analogous scenarios. I think that on balance the abolition of the alienation of affections tort (which has happened in 45 states) is a good idea. But not for the reason that “the lover isn’t at fault, only the spouses are…Rather, alienation of affections is analogous to complicity liability. If Alan commits an intentional wrong against Betty, either a crime or a tort, and Cathy encourages Alan to do that, Cathy is generally liable. The term sometimes used for this is “solicitation,” though sometimes it’s seen as a form of aiding and abetting.

“If Cathy helps Alan in committing the wrong, or participates in committing it, Cathy is likewise liable for aiding and abetting or conspiracy. (Both those concepts apply to civil liability as well as criminal liability.)

“Perhaps most analogously to alienation of affections, if Alan breaches his contract with Betty, and Cathy encouraged him to breach it, she will in many situations be liable for intentional interference with contract. Likewise if Alan breached a fiduciary duty to Betty, and Cathy encouraged that breach….

Additional ethics notes:

1. Sinema works as an attorney at Hogan Lovells and teaches at Arizona State University. A judge just ruled that she lied in her court documents (or that her attorney lied on her behalf). She should be disciplined for that by the Arizona Bar, suspended at least. She won’t be, of course.

2. Interestingly, Sinema’s teaching gig isn’t at the law school. She is the Distinguished Professor of Practice in the School of Social Work. Nonetheless, universities shouldn’t have proven liars on their faculties. But “Everybody Does it”….

3. Did then-Senator Sinema used her imbalance of power to entice a subordinate into a non-consensual sexual relationship, as recently discussed in this recent EA post? Does the “boss-subordinate” sexual harassment/hostile work environment only apply when the boss is a man?

______________

Pointer: Young Bill.