Judge Rules Justice Department Unlawfully Fired Prosecutor Maurene Comey, Orders Back Pay for July to December 2025
U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman held that the July 2025 firing broke the Civil Service Reform Act and the separation of powers, and he rejected the administration's Article II argument; the Justice Department says it will appeal.
Five months of pay, and a bigger question about who controls prosecutors
On Monday, October 26, 2026, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled that the Justice Department broke the law when it fired Maurene Comey in July 2025[1][2]. Comey was a career federal prosecutor. She is also the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey[1]. U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman wrote a 55-page decision. He found the firing violated the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) and the constitutional separation of powers[1][8].
The Justice Department said it "disagrees with this decision and will appeal in due course"[4].
But the remedy is narrower than "reinstated" sounds. Comey took another job in December 2025[1]. So Furman reinstated her only on paper, for the stretch from her firing on July 16, 2025 to December 20, 2025[2]. She gets back pay and pension credit for those roughly five months. Her personnel file will now show a resignation, not a firing[2][14].
She is not going back to the prosecutor's office. The money at stake is small. The legal question is not.
What nobody disputes
Comey had been an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York since 2015. That is nearly a decade[8][10]. Her cases included Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and Sean "Diddy" Combs[8].
The Justice Department acknowledged that the firing was not for cause. It also acknowledged that it was not based on her performance[2]. The administration gave no reason for the firing[1].
So this case isn't a fight over whether she did her job well. The department rested the firing on one thing: the attorney general's claimed power under Article II of the Constitution. It did not rely on the removal procedures in the CSRA[2][7].
The government's case
The administration's argument starts from a simple idea. Prosecution is a core power of the executive branch. The President answers to voters for every choice about whom the government charges. So, the argument goes, he must be able to remove the lawyers who carry out that power[5].
In court, the department said line prosecutors "exercise prosecutorial and investigatory functions that fall squarely within the President's 'conclusive and preclusive' powers." Its conclusion was that the President may remove them "for any reason or no reason at all"[5]. A law that lets a career prosecutor keep a job against the attorney general's wishes, it argued, splits up executive power that the Constitution gives to one elected person[5].
The department also argued at first that the case didn't belong in federal court. Federal employees usually must take firing complaints to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). That board is a quasi-court inside the executive branch[7][17].
The department's stated aim is a ruling that the President can remove career prosecutors without the CSRA's cause requirements and hearing procedures[4][5]. Critics of the administration describe this as an effort to make prosecutors answer to the White House in a way civil-service law was meant to prevent.
Comey's case and the judge's answer
Comey's side starts from the 1978 law. Through the CSRA, Congress decided that career government lawyers can be fired only for set reasons and through set procedures. The goal is to keep prosecutions free of political pressure[11].
The Constitution lets Congress set the rules for "inferior officers," meaning officials below the top tier. The Supreme Court has upheld limits on removing them for generations[5]. Comey says the government gave no reason for firing a prosecutor with a strong record and nearly ten years on the job[4]. Her lawyers argue the real motive was President Trump's long feud with her father, whom Trump fired as FBI director in 2017[4][8].
Furman didn't need to decide that motive question, because the department gave no reason at all[2]. He did reject the Article II theory. He wrote that it "flies in the face of nearly two centuries of Supreme Court precedent"[4][5].
He also gave the government something. The attorney general, he found, is "authorized by law" to remove an assistant U.S. attorney. But the attorney general is "also limited by law, namely the CSRA, to do so only in a particular manner and only for certain reasons"[9][11].
On the forum fight, Furman held that the department's sole reliance on Article II put the case "outside the universe of cases that Congress intended the MSPB to resolve." That is why a federal court could hear it. He had already refused to send the case to the board on April 28, 2026[7][12]. That forum ruling could matter in other cases as much as the main holding[7][16].
Same ruling, different first lines
Coverage split mostly over what to put first. Fox News, The Daily Wire and The Blaze all led their headlines with "Obama judge" or "Obama-appointed judge," and described Comey through her father[3][9][10]. The Daily Wire's "weighs in" made a binding judgment sound like an opinion[9]. The Blaze called her father "disgraced" in its own voice[10]. Fox's headline used "sweeping" for the Article II claim without attributing the word to anyone[3]. Yet Fox and The Daily Wire also reported that Furman agreed the attorney general can lawfully fire prosecutors[3][9].
Other outlets stressed different facts. CNBC's headline called her an "Epstein prosecutor," though the ruling doesn't turn on that case[2]. NPR's headline said she was "illegally fired" and gave more room to her retaliation claim than to the department's constitutional theory[4]. Al Jazeera called her the "daughter of Trump critic James Comey." That framed the case as political retaliation before explaining the legal grounds[8].
Few headlines on any side made clear that the reinstatement is retroactive and covers about five months[2].
What the appeal will test
Conservative commentators see the ruling as one more district judge limiting an elected President's control over his own department[3][9][10]. They point to the judge's appointing president as a reason to doubt neutrality. Supporters of the ruling point to the Supreme Court record it cites.
The decision binds only this case unless higher courts adopt it[4]. The appeal goes first to the Second Circuit, and possibly later to the Supreme Court. Those courts will decide whether civil-service protections for line prosecutors survive a direct Article II challenge. If the ruling stands, other at-will firings of career prosecutors would also be open to challenge[4].
Summary
On Monday, October 26, 2026, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled that the Justice Department broke the law when it fired Maurene Comey in July 2025[1][2]. Comey was a career federal prosecutor and is the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey[1]. In a 55-page decision, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman found that the firing violated the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) and the constitutional separation of powers[1][8]. The Justice Department said it "disagrees with this decision and will appeal in due course"[4].
The remedy is narrower than "reinstated" may sound. Comey took another job in December 2025[1]. So the judge reinstated her only on paper, for the time between her firing on July 16, 2025 and December 20, 2025[2]. She gets back pay and pension credit for those roughly five months. Her personnel file will now say she resigned, not that she was fired[2][14]. She is not returning to the prosecutor's office.
The core dispute is about power, not about her work. The Justice Department admitted the firing was not for cause and not based on her performance[2]. It argued that Article II of the Constitution lets the President, through the attorney general, remove prosecutors "for any reason or no reason at all," and that Congress cannot limit that power[5]. Furman disagreed. He wrote that the claim "flies in the face of nearly two centuries of Supreme Court precedent," which lets Congress protect lower-level "inferior officers" from being fired at will[4][5].
A second dispute is about motive. Comey's lawyers argued she was fired because of President Trump's long feud with her father, whom Trump fired as FBI director in 2017[4][8]. The administration gave no reason for the firing[1]. Conservative outlets put the judge's appointment by President Obama at the top of their coverage[3][9][10]. The appeal will test whether higher courts agree that civil-service protections for line prosecutors survive a direct Article II challenge[4].
The Event
On October 26, 2026, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York granted Maurene Comey judgment on her central claims. He ruled that the Justice Department's July 16, 2025 firing of her as an assistant U.S. attorney was unlawful[6][11]. He ordered retroactive reinstatement, back pay and pension credit through December 20, 2025, and a change to her personnel file to show a resignation[2]. The Justice Department said it would appeal[4].
Undisputed Facts
- Maurene Comey had been an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York since 2015, nearly a decade, when she was fired in July 2025[8][10].
- Her cases included Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and Sean "Diddy" Combs[8].
- The Justice Department acknowledged that the firing was not for cause and was not based on her performance[2].
- The Justice Department rested the firing on the attorney general's claimed authority under Article II of the Constitution, not on the Civil Service Reform Act's removal procedures[2][7].
- On April 28, 2026, Furman denied the government's motion to dismiss and refused to send the case to the Merit Systems Protection Board[7][12].
- Furman's October 26 ruling covers the period from July 16, 2025 to December 20, 2025, when Comey took another job[1][2].
- The Justice Department said it "disagrees with this decision and will appeal in due course"[4].
- Furman was appointed to the federal bench by President Barack Obama[3][9].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Who controls federal prosecutors
- The administration wants political leaders to be able to remove career prosecutors at will. Civil-service law gives those prosecutors set reasons and procedures for removal[5][11]. Whoever wins this point decides how much the DOJ's line staff can be reshaped after an election.
- Inferior officers and Article II
- The Constitution lets Congress decide how "inferior officers" are appointed. Supreme Court cases have long read that power to include limits on removing them[5]. The administration's theory is that prosecution is so central to executive power that this rule does not apply to prosecutors[5]. Higher courts will have to settle that clash.
- Which forum hears federal firing cases
- Federal workers usually must take firing complaints to the Merit Systems Protection Board, a quasi-court inside the executive branch. Furman let this case skip the board because the DOJ relied only on the Constitution and not the CSRA's rules[7][16]. That forum ruling could matter in other cases as much as the main holding.
Material realityComey is not going back to the office. The order gives her pay and pension credit for about five months, July 16 to December 20, 2025, and changes her record to show a resignation[2]. The DOJ has admitted the firing was not about her performance, so the case turns only on legal authority[2]. The ruling binds only this case unless higher courts adopt it. A Second Circuit appeal will decide whether its reasoning applies to other assistant U.S. attorneys fired without cause[4].
Narrative as a weaponEach camp spotlights a different fact. Right-leaning outlets lead with the judge's appointment by Obama and with Comey's father. That invites readers to see the ruling as partisan, though those same outlets confirm the judge agreed the attorney general has firing authority[3][9][10]. Left-leaning and international outlets lead with her Epstein and Combs cases and with Trump's feud with her father. That invites a retaliation reading the court did not need to decide, because the DOJ gave no reason at all[2][8]. Few headlines on either side make clear that the reinstatement is retroactive only and covers about five months[2].
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asProsecution is a core power of the executive branch. The President answers to voters for every decision about whom the government charges. So he must be able to remove the lawyers who use that power[5]. In court the DOJ argued that line prosecutors "exercise prosecutorial and investigatory functions that fall squarely within the President's 'conclusive and preclusive' powers." Its conclusion: the President must be able to remove them "for any reason or no reason at all"[5]. A law that lets a career prosecutor keep a job against the attorney general's wishes, the argument goes, splits up executive power the Constitution gives to one elected person. The department also argued at first that federal employees must bring firing complaints to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), not federal court[7][17].
WhyThe DOJ's stated aim is a ruling that the President can remove career prosecutors without the CSRA's cause requirements and hearing procedures, consistent with its broader position on presidential control of the executive branch[4][5]. Critics of the administration describe this as an effort to make the prosecutor corps politically accountable to the White House in a way civil-service law was meant to prevent.
Impact on themThe money at stake is small: about five months of pay. The legal stakes are larger. If the ruling stands on appeal, other at-will firings of career prosecutors would also be open to challenge[4].
Frames it asCongress decided in 1978, through the CSRA, that career government lawyers can be fired only for set reasons and through set procedures. The goal is to keep prosecutions free of political pressure[11]. The Constitution lets Congress set those rules for "inferior officers," and the Supreme Court has upheld such limits for generations[5]. Comey says the government gave no reason for firing a nearly ten-year prosecutor with a strong record[4]. Her lawyers argue the real reason was Trump's grievance against her father[8].
WhyComey wants her record cleared, her lost pay and pension credit restored, and a ruling that the firing was unlawful[2].
Impact on themShe gets back pay and pension credit for July 16 to December 20, 2025, and her file will show a resignation instead of a firing[2]. She has already taken another job[1].
Frames it asThe court found that the attorney general is "authorized by law" to remove an assistant U.S. attorney. But it held that the attorney general is "also limited by law, namely the CSRA, to do so only in a particular manner and only for certain reasons"[9][11]. Furman held that the DOJ's sole reliance on Article II put the case "outside the universe of cases that Congress intended the MSPB to resolve." That is why a federal court, not the board, could hear it[7].
WhyTo decide the case under existing Supreme Court precedent on removal limits for inferior officers and on which cases must go to the MSPB[5][7].
Impact on themThe ruling now goes to the Second Circuit, and possibly the Supreme Court. Higher courts will decide whether it stands[4].
Frames it asCommentators on the right point out that the judge was appointed by Obama. They see the ruling as one more example of district judges blocking the elected President's control over his own department[3][9][10]. They note that even Furman agreed the attorney general can lawfully fire prosecutors[9]. In their view the fight is over process, not over whether he had the power at all.
WhyTo build support for a broad view of presidential removal power and to question the neutrality of judges who rule against the administration[3][10].
Impact on themThe ruling becomes part of a wider political argument about the courts. That argument shapes how supporters read later court losses for the administration[9][10].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.8
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPR | U.S. center-left (public broadcaster) | 3 | Maurene Comey was illegally fired from DOJ, judge finds | Plain, attributed headline. The body features her claim of retaliation over her father and the judge's "two centuries" line. It gives less space to the DOJ's affirmative constitutional theory. |
| CNBC | U.S. center / business | 4 | Trump DOJ unlawfully fired Epstein prosecutor Maurene Comey, judge rules | "Epstein prosecutor" is factually accurate (she worked on the Epstein case) but foregrounds the highest-profile case, which the ruling does not turn on. The body is plain and includes the exact back-pay dates. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 4 | US court rules daughter of Trump critic James Comey was illegally fired | "Daughter of Trump critic" frames the story as political retaliation before the reader learns the legal grounds. |
| Fox News | U.S. right | 5 | Obama judge rules Trump DOJ illegally fired James Comey's daughter, rejects sweeping Article II claim | The headline leads with "Obama judge" and names her only through her father. "Sweeping" is not attributed to the judge or anyone else in the headline. |
| The Daily Wire | U.S. right | 6 | Obama-Appointed Judge Weighs In On Trump DOJ's Move Against Comey's Daughter | "Weighs in" downplays a binding judgment into an opinion. The judge's appointing president gets the first words. |
| The Blaze | U.S. right | 7 | Obama judge orders Trump DOJ to retroactively reinstate Comey's daughter as federal prosecutor | Leads with "Obama judge" and calls her father the "disgraced ex-FBI Director" in its own voice. To its credit, it correctly says the reinstatement is "retroactive." |
References
- Maurene Comey, James Comey's daughter, was unlawfully fired, judge rules — CBS News · U.S. mainstream network (Paramount Skydance-owned); center
- Trump DOJ unlawfully fired Epstein prosecutor Maurene Comey, judge rules — CNBC · U.S. business news (Versant/NBCUniversal lineage); center
- Obama judge rules Trump DOJ illegally fired James Comey's daughter, rejects sweeping Article II claim — Fox News · U.S. right; Fox Corporation
- Maurene Comey was illegally fired from DOJ, judge finds — NPR · U.S. public broadcaster; center-left audience; partly publicly funded
- Judge rules Trump DOJ 'unlawfully' fired Maurene Comey — ABC News · U.S. mainstream network (Disney-owned); center
- Comey v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 25-cv-7625, Opinion (Oct. 26, 2026) — U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · Primary source: federal court record
- Judge allows Maurene Comey's lawsuit challenging her firing to move forward in federal court — CBS News · U.S. mainstream network (Paramount Skydance-owned); center
- US court rules daughter of Trump critic James Comey was illegally fired — Al Jazeera · Funded by the government of Qatar
- Obama-Appointed Judge Weighs In On Trump DOJ's Move Against Comey's Daughter — The Daily Wire · U.S. conservative digital outlet
- Obama judge orders Trump DOJ to retroactively reinstate Comey's daughter as federal prosecutor — The Blaze · U.S. conservative/right-populist digital outlet
- Epstein prosecutor Maurene Comey was unlawfully fired, federal judge rules — JURIST · Legal news service based at the University of Pittsburgh law school; academic, center
- Comey v. United States Department of Justice 1:25-cv-07625 (S.D.N.Y.) — Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse · University of Michigan law-school database of civil-rights litigation; academic, tracks cases against government
- Plaintiff's memorandum, Comey v. DOJ (judgment on the pleadings) — Courthouse News Service (court filing) · Primary source: plaintiff's legal brief (advocacy document)
- Judge rules James Comey's daughter unlawfully fired as federal prosecutor — The Hill · U.S. Washington-focused outlet (Nexstar-owned); center
- Judge: Maurene Comey was illegally fired from Justice Department — CNN · U.S. cable news; center-left
- Maurene Comey's Firing Exposes the Limits of Thunder Basin — Lawfare · National-security law publication (Lawfare Institute, Brookings-affiliated origins); center-left legal establishment
- US Justice Department seeks to dismiss lawsuit over Maurene Comey's firing — Al Jazeera · Funded by the government of Qatar