A federal judge ruled Monday that the Department of Justice’s firing last year of New York federal prosecutor Maurene Comey, the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, was unlawful.
Judge Jesse Furman, in his ruling, also granted Maurene Comey retroactive reinstatement and back pay as an assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York from her termination on July 16, 2025, through Dec. 20, 2025, when the judge inferred she accepted another job.
The DOJ said it would appeal Furman’s ruling in which the judge rejected the department’s arguments that the attorney general had authority to dismiss Comey without cause. The case is in in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.
Comey’s lawyers, in a statement, said, “This hard-earned victory belongs to Ms. Comey, to all civil servants, and to all fighting for the rule of law.”
“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,'” the lawyers said. “This decision reaffirms our bedrock system of checks and balances:the President is not above the law.”
Before her termination, Comey was involved in a series of high-profile federal prosecutions, including ones against the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell and Sean “Diddy” Combs.
Her lawsuit against the DOJ argued that her termination violated federal law and the Constitution and stemmed from President Donald Trump‘s longstanding animus toward her father, whom Trump had fired as FBI director in 2017.
James Comey is currently under federal indictment that accuses him of threatening Trump’s life by posting on Instagram a photo of seashells forming the number “86 47.” His attorneys are seeking to have that case tossed out.
James Comey, who denies any wrongdoing, previously had another federal indictment against him filed by the DOJ under Trump dismissed.
Maurene Comey’s suit said the DOJ did not give “any explanation whatsoever for terminating Ms. Comey,” and, “In truth, there is no legitimate explanation.”
“Rather, Defendants fired Ms. Comey solely or substantially because her father is former FBI Director James B. Comey, or because of her perceived political affiliation and beliefs, or both,” the suit said.
Furman, in his ruling for Comey, referenced that claim, but his decision was based on other grounds.
The judge rejected the DOJ’s arguments that then-Attorney General Pam Bondi could remove a federal prosecutor “at will” and without cause and that current Attorney General Todd Blanche could ratify that act after the fact as he did in May as acting attorney general.
Furman also rejected the DOJ’s argument that even if the Civil Service Reform Act requires removal of a prosecutor for cause, an attorney general’s firing of her constituted an implicit determination that she was removed “for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.”
“The Court need not dwell long on Defendants’ second statutory argument justifying Comey’s removal,” Furman said, referring to that claim.
“That is because the argument borders on frivolous.”
The judge noted that Comey was fired despite having had excellent performance reviews.
“Comey’s supervisors and peers consistently lauded her work, describing her as a ‘brilliant lawyer and a gifted supervisor,’ ‘the lawyer the office turns to when legal excellence is a must,’ and ‘an outstanding AUSA in every respect’ with ‘judgment, work product, and courtroom advocacy [that are] among the finest in the country,'” Furman wrote.
The DOJ admitted that Comey’s termination “was not ‘for cause’ and was not based on her
performance,” Furman noted.
In addition, the judge said, the DOJ’s argument that Comey’s termination was lawful ignored parts of the Civil Service Reform Act, which “required that Comey be given advance written notice (subject to certain exceptions not relevant here); ‘a reasonable time’ to respond orally and in writing; representation; and ‘a written decision and the specific reasons therefor at the earliest practicable date.'”
“Defendants concede, as they must, that Comey was not afforded these procedural protections,” the judge said.
Furman also said the DOJ all but admitted that its argument that the attorney general had power to fire Comey under Article II of the U.S. Constitution — which establishes the executive branch of government — sought “to overturn nearly two centuries of Supreme Court precedent.”
“This Court, however, is bound to follow the Supreme Court’s precedents unless and until the Supreme Court overturns them,” Furman wrote.
The DOJ, in a statement, said, “The Department disagrees with this decision and will appeal in due course.”
That appeal would happen after Furman issues a final judgment in the case.
The judge reserved judgment on Comey’s claim that her firing violated her First Amendment rights. Furman gave her until Nov. 9 to file arguments on why that claim should not be dismissed as moot given his order in her favor on other grounds.
CNBC has requested comment on the ruling from the White House.
Comey, in a note to colleagues at the U.S. Attorney’s Office after she was fired, wrote, “If a career prosecutor can be fired without reason, fear may seep into the decisions of those who remain.”
“Fear is the tool of a tyrant, wielded to suppress independent thought. Instead of fear, let this moment fuel the fire that already burns in the heart of this place,” she wrote. “A fire of righteous indignation at abuses of power. Of commitment to seek justice for victims.”