Judge voids firing of prosecutor Maurene Comey
A federal judge ruled the dismissal unlawful, citing violations of the Civil Service Reform Act and rejecting the administration's claim of broad executive power.
By Amina Howard ·
Federal courts have issued a direct check on the Trump administration's power to remove career prosecutors. Judge Jesse Furman of the southern district of New York ruled that the Department of Justice's decision to fire Assistant US Attorney Maurene Comey without cause was unlawful. This ruling invalidates the immediate termination letter Comey received in July 2025, which stated her employment was ended effective immediately without prior notice or explanation.
The legal battle began in September 2025 when Comey filed suit against her ouster. Her attorneys, including Ellen Blain, Nicole Gueron, Deepa Vanamali, and Margaret Donovan, argued the dismissal violated established law. In July 2025, then-Manhattan US Attorney Jay Clayton told Comey the order came from Washington. The Department of Justice later stated that former US Attorney General Pam Bondi directed the firing and that her successor, Todd Blanche, ratified the decision.
The administration argued that Article II of the Constitution granted the president and attorney general the right to dismiss line prosecutors. However, Furman rejected this position. He ruled that the firing was not authorized by any specific law and directly violated the Civil Service Reform Act. Furman stated that the department's claim contradicted nearly two centuries of Supreme Court precedent and would unsettle the constitutional equilibrium.
Legal experts view the decision as a persuasive precedent for other judges, though not a binding rule. Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, said the ruling vindicated Comey and set a valuable standard against summarily firing career staff. Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, noted that courts are increasingly stepping in to prevent administration violations of the rule of law. She pointed to a separate ruling earlier this week where Judge David Carter rejected Trump's attempt to discard 20,000 ballots in California.
The case is expected to move to the second circuit court of appeals. Tobias anticipates that the appeals court will affirm Furman's decision. The administration would likely then appeal to the US Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, the lower appeals court decision would stand. If they accept the case, the outcome remains uncertain, as Rahmani noted that several justices may believe in limited restrictions on presidential power.
Critics have long suspected Comey was targeted because her father, former FBI director James Comey, is a frequent target of Trump's justice department. The department made public its third case against James Comey this week, following one dismissal and one pending proceeding. The Department of Justice defended the idea that familial relations could be considered in termination proceedings, though Comey's lawyers maintain the firing was politically motivated.
Comey's legal team described the ruling as a complete rejection of the administration's claim to unchecked executive power. They stated that the decision demonstrates the constitutional system of checks and balances remains functional. The ruling is not binding on other judges, but Elizabeth Wolstein, a former Manhattan federal prosecutor, said a well-reasoned decision like this one will be persuasive to other courts facing similar issues.
The White House responded by rejecting allegations that the department is punishing political opponents. Spokesperson Lauren Bis stated that President Trump has not weaponized the Department of Justice against his foes. Bis added that the department is focused on restoring law and order and achieving the largest decrease in violent crime in American history. The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling.
