A federal judge ruled Monday that the Trump administration violated federal employment protections when it dismissed former prosecutor Maurene Comey, ordering back pay and retroactive reinstatement while rejecting the Justice Department’s argument that presidential authority permitted her removal.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A federal judge appointed by former President Barack Obama ruled Monday, Oct. 26, that the Justice Department unlawfully fired Maurene Comey, daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, from her position as a federal prosecutor in Manhattan, ordering her retroactive reinstatement and compensation for approximately five months of lost employment.
U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Southern District of New York issued a 55-page decision rejecting the Trump administration’s argument that the president possesses unrestricted constitutional authority to dismiss career federal prosecutors. The ruling found that Comey’s July 2025 termination violated federal civil service protections and the constitutional separation of powers.
The decision grants Comey retroactive reinstatement from the date of her dismissal through Dec. 20, 2025, when she accepted another job. The order makes her eligible for back pay and related employment benefits during that period rather than requiring her immediate return to the Justice Department.
“The Court concludes the Defendants are wrong,” Furman wrote in rejecting the administration’s interpretation of presidential removal authority.
Comey, who joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York in 2015, was dismissed in July 2025 after nearly a decade prosecuting major federal criminal cases. Her work included proceedings involving Jeffrey Epstein, convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, music executive Sean “Diddy” Combs and former Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez.
According to The Associated Press, Furman noted that Comey had consistently received “the highest accolades from supervisors and peers alike” throughout her prosecutorial career.
Justice Department filings acknowledged that Comey received outstanding performance evaluations from 2019 through 2024. Despite those assessments, she was removed without advance notice or an explanation identifying misconduct or inadequate job performance.
Comey subsequently filed a lawsuit in September 2025, alleging that her termination violated federal employment law and constitutional protections. She maintained that the administration targeted her because of her relationship with her father, who has publicly clashed with President Donald Trump since being dismissed as FBI director in 2017.
Her lawsuit also alleged that officials acted because of her perceived political beliefs, claims that raised questions about whether the dismissal constituted prohibited political retaliation.
The Justice Department disputed her allegations and defended the termination under Article II of the Constitution, arguing that federal prosecutors exercise executive authority on behalf of the president and therefore remain subject to his removal powers.
Attorneys for the administration contended that Congress cannot restrict the president’s authority to dismiss prosecutors performing executive branch functions. They also argued that Comey should have pursued her claims before the Merit Systems Protection Board rather than directly in federal court.
Furman rejected those arguments, determining that the administration’s interpretation of presidential authority conflicted with longstanding constitutional principles and federal law.
In the court’s ruling, reported by The Washington Post, Furman wrote that the government’s position “flies in the face of nearly two centuries of Supreme Court precedent.”
“Indeed, to accept Defendants’ argument would be to unsettle the very equilibrium established by this Nation’s constitutional system,” the judge wrote.
The decision relied in part on the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which established employment protections and procedures governing adverse personnel actions against federal workers.
Furman concluded that Congress possesses authority to regulate the removal of certain federal officers, including career prosecutors, and that the administration could not disregard applicable statutory requirements simply by invoking presidential executive power.
The ruling also addressed the government’s contention that the federal judiciary lacked jurisdiction over Comey’s claims. Furman determined that the constitutional basis asserted for her dismissal permitted the court to consider the legality of the administration’s actions.
The dispute carries broader implications for the Trump administration’s efforts to remove career Justice Department personnel, particularly employees who worked on politically sensitive investigations.
During Trump’s second term, the department has dismissed numerous employees associated with investigations involving the president, including personnel who handled cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and Trump’s retention of classified government documents.
Other former federal employees have challenged their dismissals, arguing that constitutional and statutory protections limit the administration’s ability to remove career officials without legally sufficient grounds.
Comey’s lawsuit emerged against the backdrop of the president’s longstanding conflict with her father, James Comey, who served as FBI director from 2013 until Trump fired him in May 2017.
The former FBI director subsequently became a prominent critic of Trump and has faced criminal proceedings during the president’s second administration. He has denied wrongdoing and challenged the government’s actions against him.
Although Maurene Comey argued that her dismissal was motivated by retaliation against her father or perceived political affiliations, Furman’s decision centered on the legality of the administration’s asserted removal authority. The ruling did not establish that political retaliation was the proven motive for her termination.
Following Monday’s decision, Comey’s attorneys welcomed the outcome as a reaffirmation of statutory employment protections and constitutional limits on executive authority.
“As the Court correctly held, to accept the government’s argument about unlimited executive power ‘would be to unsettle the very equilibrium established by this nation’s constitutional system,’” her attorneys said in a statement reported by Axios.
“This decision reaffirms our bedrock system of checks and balances: the President is not above the law,” the attorneys added.
The Justice Department disagreed with the ruling and announced plans to challenge it.
A department spokesperson said the government “disagrees with this decision and will appeal in due course,” although further proceedings in district court remain pending before an appeal can move forward.
The decision represents a significant legal development concerning the administration’s authority over career prosecutors, but the dispute is not necessarily concluded. An appellate court could review whether Congress may impose the employment restrictions Furman applied and whether those protections extend to prosecutors exercising executive authority.
For Comey, the immediate result is a judicial determination that her dismissal was unlawful, together with an order restoring her employment status retroactively and providing compensation for the period before she accepted another position.
Original article
Comments