A federal judge has held that a young prosecutor, dismissed without notice or reason in the summer of 2025, was removed unlawfully, rejecting the argument that the presidency's constitutional powers allow the executive to discharge line prosecutors at will. The ruling, delivered in a case that touches the long-running tension between political power and the independence of the justice system, speaks to a question older than the present administration: how far the state may reach into the careers of those who serve it. It is a judgment with weight but not yet final authority, and its significan
Judge Rules Firing of Maurene Comey Unlawful, Offering Check on Politicized Dismissals
Maurene Comey, a longtime SDNY prosecutor who won major convictions, was fired without notice or explanation and lost her federal job.
A letter, no reason given, and a federal career ended "effective immediately."
Mark
Start with the basics. What exactly did the judge decide?
Mimi
That firing Maurene Comey without cause was unlawful. Judge Furman said no law authorized it and that it violated the Civil Service Reform Act. He also rejected the idea that Article II lets the president fire line prosecutors at will.
Mark
Why does a single district ruling matter, then?
Mimi
It isn't binding, but the experts say persuasive reasoning travels. Rahmani and Wolstein both said other judges facing similar facts may look to it.
Luke
Careful there. Those are predictions about influence, not outcomes. No one has shown yet that another judge has relied on it.
Mark
Fair. And the motive? Her lawyers say it's about her father.
Mimi
Her lawyers and critics of Trump say that. The department has defended considering family relationships in terminations, which is notable in itself.
Luke
But the ruling as reported rests on the lack of legal authority and the statute. The source doesn't say Furman found the firing was retaliation for her father. The motive remains a claim.
Mark
What about the explanation she was given?
Mimi
None. Per court papers, Clayton allegedly said it came from Washington. The department says Bondi directed it and Blanche ratified it.
Luke
Note the word allegedly. That quote comes from court filings, not a confirmed record.
Mark
And what comes next?
Mimi
An expected appeal to the second circuit, and possibly the Supreme Court. Rahmani cautioned that this court might not be friendly to limits on the president.
Luke
Tobias's expectation that Furman is affirmed is one expert's guess. Nothing has been filed that we know of, and the outcome is open.
Il Polso
- A prosecutor who won major convictions learned she had lost her federal job through a letter that gave no reason at all.
- The firing has been tied in public debate to her father, the former FBI director who is himself under repeated prosecution by the same department.
- The Justice Department argued that Article II gave the president sweeping power to remove line prosecutors, a claim the judge called without merit.
- A federal appeal to the Second Circuit is widely expected, and possibly a Supreme Court petition, so the ruling remains open rather than settled.
A federal judge has held that a young prosecutor, dismissed without notice or reason in the summer of 2025, was removed unlawfully, rejecting the argument that the presidency's constitutional powers allow the executive to discharge line prosecutors at will. The ruling, delivered in a case that touches the long-running tension between political power and the independence of the justice system, speaks to a question older than the present administration: how far the state may reach into the careers of those who serve it. It is a judgment with weight but not yet final authority, and its significance will depend on the appeals that now seem likely to follow.
On 16 July 2025, Maurene Comey opened a letter ending her employment with the Department of Justice, effective immediately, with no reason given. She had been an assistant US attorney in the southern district of New York, and had secured guilty verdicts against Ghislaine Maxwell and Sean Combs. Now a federal judge has ruled that the firing was unlawful.
Judge Jesse Furman found the dismissal was made without cause, was authorized by no law, and violated the Civil Service Reform Act. The government had argued that Article II gave the president authority to fire line prosecutors, who are not political appointees. Furman dismissed that position as contrary to nearly two centuries of Supreme Court precedent, warning that accepting it would unsettle the constitutional balance.
Comey sued in September 2025. Her lawyers say she received neither notice nor explanation, and when she asked the Manhattan US attorney about the letter, she was reportedly told only that it came from Washington. Her lawyers and critics of the president believe the firing was connected to her father, James Comey, a longtime Trump adversary whom the department has repeatedly tried to prosecute. The department has defended the principle that family ties may be considered in such decisions.
Legal observers called the ruling a meaningful vindication, though they were careful about its reach. A district court decision does not bind other judges, but a persuasive opinion can guide those facing similar facts. An appeal to the Second Circuit appears likely, and the Supreme Court could be asked to weigh in. The White House maintains that it is restoring law and order, not targeting political foes. The next step is whether the government files its appeal.
On 16 July 2025, Maurene Comey opened a letter telling her that her employment with the Department of Justice was terminated and that she was removed from federal service effective immediately. It gave no reason. She was an assistant US attorney in the southern district of New York who had won guilty verdicts against Ghislaine Maxwell and Sean "Diddy" Combs. This week, a federal judge ruled that the firing was unlawful.
Judge Jesse Furman found that the dismissal, made without cause, was not authorized by any law and in fact violated the Civil Service Reform Act. The Justice Department had argued that Article II of the US constitution, which defines presidential power, gave Donald Trump and his attorney general the right to fire line prosecutors, who are not political appointees. Furman rejected that position. It "flies in the face of nearly two centuries of Supreme Court precedent," he wrote, and is "without merit." Accepting it, he said, would unsettle the equilibrium established by the nation's constitutional system.
Comey filed suit in September 2025. According to court papers, she received neither notice nor explanation. When she asked the then Manhattan US attorney, Jay Clayton, about the letter, he allegedly told her: "all I can say is it came from Washington. I can't tell you anything else." The Justice Department has said the firing was directed by the former attorney general, Pam Bondi, and later "ratified" by her successor, Todd Blanche.
Her lawyers and critics of the president have argued that she was fired because her father is James Comey, the former FBI director and longtime Trump foe. The department has defended the idea that family relationships can be considered in termination decisions. Trump's Justice Department has repeatedly tried to prosecute James Comey, and this week made public its third case against him. One earlier proceeding was dismissed, and another is pending.
Legal observers called the ruling a cause for cautious optimism. Carl Tobias, the Williams chair at the University of Richmond School of Law, said Furman "completely vindicated her and rejected just about all of the arguments made by the government," and that the ruling sets a valuable precedent given how summarily she was fired. Neama Rahmani, founder of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosecutor, placed it among other recent rulings limiting the administration, including a decision on Monday by Los Angeles federal judge David Carter rejecting Trump's attempt to set aside 20,000 ballots in California.
The experts were careful about what the decision can do. A district court ruling does not bind other judges, even in the same district. Elizabeth Wolstein, a partner at Schlam Stone & Dolan and a former Manhattan federal prosecutor in the civil division, said a well-reasoned and persuasive opinion can still carry weight with a judge facing a similar issue. Rahmani said other people who believe they were wrongly terminated can cite it, and that judges look to such rulings in cases with similar facts.
An appeal looks likely. Tobias expects the government to go to the second circuit court of appeals, expects Furman to be affirmed there, and assumes the administration would then petition the US supreme court. The justices would decide whether to hear it, and if they declined, the appeals court decision would stand. Rahmani said the case raises issues that could interest the court, particularly if different appeals courts reached different conclusions. He also warned against reading too much into that path: many justices, he said, do not believe the president should face many restrictions, so this is "far from the silver bullet."
Comey's legal team, which includes Ellen Blain, Nicole Gueron and Deepa Vanamali of Clarick Gueron Reisbaum and Margaret Donovan of Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, called the decision a complete rejection of the administration's claim to unchecked executive power. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said that, unlike Joe Biden, Trump has not weaponized the department against political foes. She said it is focused on restoring law and order. The next step to watch is whether the government files its appeal to the second circuit.
Citazioni salienti
The justice department's claim flies in the face of nearly two centuries of Supreme Court precedent.— Judge Jesse Furman
It is not binding at all, but it's certainly something that judges look to with similar or exact same facts.— Neama Rahmani, former federal prosecutor
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su The Guardian ↗
Politics & Governance