WASHINGTON – The Justice Department is attempting to use executive privilege to prevent its fired pardon attorney from telling Congress about the circumstances of her departure, and dispatched armed deputy U.S. marshals to her home to deliver restrictions on her testimony, according to letters made public on Monday.

Liz Oyer, who has said she was fired as the department’s pardon attorney last month after refusing a request to recommend that actor Mel Gibson’s gun rights be restored, is among several witnesses invited to appear Monday before a joint hearing of House and Senate lawmakers.

The hearing, which among other witnesses is to feature a former public corruption prosecutor who resigned under protest amid the Justice Department’s dismissal of its case against New York Mayor Eric Adams, will represent the first time in the new Trump administration that newly departed Justice Department lawyers have spoken publicly before Congress about the circumstances of their departures and their concerns with leadership of the federal law enforcement agency.

Ahead of the hearing, the Justice Department warned Oyer that any testimony about deliberations concerning the pardon process and the restoration of gun rights would run afoul of executive privilege, a legal principle that broadly refers to a president’s power to keep information from the courts, Congress and the public to protect the confidentiality of presidential decision-making.

That admonition was communicated in a letter that was to have been delivered to Oyer’s home late Friday night by deputy marshals, according to a separate letter from her lawyer, Michael Bromwich, who described the episode as a “deplorable incident.” Oyer was able to confirm receipt of the letter, which was also sent to her email address, and forestall the arrival of the marshals to her home, her lawyer said.

“This highly unusual step of directing armed law enforcement officers to the home of a former Department of Justice employee who has engaged in no misconduct, let alone criminal conduct, simply to deliver a letter, is both unprecedented and completely inappropriate.” Bromwich wrote.

Justice Department spokespeople did not immediately respond to a request for comment.