A federal judge ruled Monday that the Justice Department broke the law when it fired Maurene Comey, the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey. U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York ordered her retroactively reinstated with back pay, NBC News reports. The DOJ quickly answered that it “disagrees with this decision and will appeal in due course.”
So the fight is not over. In fact, the bigger question has barely started: can a president fire the prosecutors who work for him?
Key Takeaways
- Judge Furman found the July 2025 firing violated the separation of powers, the Administrative Procedure Act, and her Fifth Amendment due process and statutory rights.
- She gets back pay from her firing through Dec. 20, 2025, when she took another job.
- She is not returning to the DOJ. Her file will instead show she resigned on Dec. 20, 2025.
- The DOJ says it will appeal. A First Amendment claim is still pending.
What the Judge Ruled in the Maurene Comey Case
Maurene Comey spent nearly ten years as a federal prosecutor in Manhattan. She worked on the cases against Sean Combs, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and former Sen. Bob Menendez. Then, on July 16, 2025, an email from Washington ended her job “[p]ursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States,” according to the 55-page opinion.
The memo gave no reason. Later, the DOJ said then-Attorney General Pam Bondi directed the firing. Her successor, Todd Blanche, ratified it in May, CBS News reports. The department also admitted that Comey earned “outstanding” performance ratings from 2019 through 2024.
The key law here is the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. It lets agencies remove career employees “only for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service,” and only after notice and a chance to respond. According to Furman, even the DOJ conceded those limits were violated. He also said one of the department’s statutory arguments “borders on frivolous.”
The Article II Case for an Appeal
Still, conservatives should not wave this off as a simple loss. The DOJ made a serious constitutional argument. The Constitution vests “the executive Power” in one person, the President. Prosecuting crimes is core executive work. Voters elect a president, not a civil service, so they should be able to hold someone accountable for who prosecutes them.
The Supreme Court has also moved in that direction. In Trump v. Slaughter this year, it overruled Humphrey’s Executor, the 1935 case that shielded independent agency heads from removal. The DOJ leaned on that ruling and on Trump v. United States from 2024.
Even Furman admitted in a footnote that, given the broad language in the 2024 immunity case, the DOJ’s argument “is at least colorable.” However, he said precedent going back almost two centuries lets Congress limit the removal of “inferior officers.” A lower court, he wrote, cannot accept the claim that recent rulings “fatally undermined” that precedent.
That is exactly why an appeal in the Maurene Comey case makes sense. Only the Supreme Court can say whether those old cases still hold for line prosecutors. A clear answer would help every future president, Republican or Democrat.
Why the Maurene Comey Firing Was Hard to Defend
At the same time, the facts of this firing are tough to defend. The DOJ removed Maurene Comey, a highly rated prosecutor, by email, with no reason and no hearing. Comey claims the real motive was her last name. Notably, the judge did not rule on that claim. Even so, the process alone sank the government’s case.
Furman also rejected the idea that at-will firing is needed to stop rogue prosecutors. After all, prosecutors who defy orders can already be fired for insubordination. Without at-will power, he wrote, that fear is “a remedy in search of a problem.”
Conservatives spent years warning about a weaponized Justice Department. That warning should not change with the party in power. We cheered when the DOJ investigated one of our own because accountability matters. The same standard applies here. Moreover, taxpayers now cover the back pay for a firing the DOJ could have handled lawfully.
What Comes Next for the DOJ
The appeal comes after a final judgment, CNBC reports. Before then, Maurene Comey has until Nov. 9 to argue why her First Amendment claim should not be dismissed. Meanwhile, her father still faces a separate criminal case.
This is not the first time a court has checked this administration. Recently, the Ninth Circuit ruled on the National Guard case even after the White House tried to drop its appeal. Wins and losses like these will shape how much power the next president holds.
Comey’s lawyers said the ruling shows “the President is not above the law.” True. But the President is also not a bystander in his own branch. So here is our question for you: should a president be able to fire federal prosecutors at will?
Follow World of Payne for More
For more conservative commentary on the courts and the Constitution, visit the World of Payne homepage and follow the show on X, Facebook, and Instagram.
