A federal judge in New York ruled Monday, October 26, 2026, that the Trump administration illegally fired Maurene Comey, a former federal prosecutor and daughter of former FBI Director James Comey. The decision rejects the Justice Department's argument that President Donald Trump has nearly unlimited constitutional authority to remove career federal prosecutors.
U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman issued the ruling in a 55-page opinion in Manhattan. He found that Comey's July 2025 dismissal violated federal civil service law and constitutional protections governing the separation of powers.
The judge ordered retroactive reinstatement and back pay covering July 16 through December 20, 2025, when Comey began another job. The ruling does not require her to leave her current position and return to the Justice Department.
The Justice Department disagreed with the decision and said it intends to appeal. However, one constitutional claim remains unresolved, meaning the case has not reached a final judgment.
Comey Fired After Nearly a Decade as Prosecutor
Maurene Comey spent almost 10 years as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, one of the country's most prominent federal prosecutor's offices. She worked on major criminal cases involving financier Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and music executive Sean "Diddy" Combs.
Her record included consistently favorable evaluations from supervisors and colleagues. In his opinion, Furman acknowledged the strong assessments she received during her career.
On July 16, 2025, Comey received an email from Justice Department officials in Washington announcing her immediate dismissal. The notice cited Article II of the Constitution and federal law as the authority for terminating her employment.
The message did not identify misconduct, poor performance or another specific reason for the dismissal. Comey subsequently challenged the decision in federal court.
Her lawsuit alleged that the administration removed her because of her family relationship with James Comey, whom Trump dismissed as FBI director in May 2017. She also argued that officials may have targeted her because of political views they believed she held.
Those allegations remain distinct from the legal findings in Monday's ruling. The judge determined that her dismissal violated federal law without deciding whether political retaliation was the administration's actual motivation.
Judge Rejects Broad Presidential Authority
The central legal dispute concerned the president's authority over federal employees who exercise executive power.
The Justice Department argued that the Constitution permits the president to remove federal prosecutors because they carry out responsibilities belonging to the executive branch. Administration lawyers maintained that congressional restrictions could not override that authority.
Furman rejected the argument, explaining that Congress has established legal protections for certain federal employees, including assistant U.S. attorneys.
The Civil Service Reform Act limits the reasons and procedures under which covered federal employees may be dismissed. It generally requires an acceptable employment-related justification and procedural safeguards, including notice and an opportunity to respond.
The judge found that the administration had not followed those requirements when it fired Comey.
In his ruling, Furman wrote that the government had "invented a new and expansive theory of executive power" to justify her removal.
He also emphasized that the administration's position conflicted with longstanding Supreme Court decisions recognizing congressional authority to protect certain lower-ranking federal officers from removal without adequate cause.
Furman distinguished career assistant U.S. attorneys from senior executive officials whose positions may carry different constitutional rules.
The court determined that Attorney General authority to dismiss assistant U.S. attorneys does not eliminate the statutory requirements governing how those dismissals must occur.
The ruling therefore rejected the administration's claim that Article II independently justified Comey's termination, regardless of federal civil service protections.
Comey Awarded Back Pay and Employment Benefits
The court granted Comey retroactive reinstatement beginning on the date she was dismissed and continuing through December 20, 2025.
That date matters because she subsequently accepted employment outside the Justice Department. She joined the private law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, where she works on matters involving white-collar defense.
The order makes her eligible for back pay and restoration of employment-related benefits for the period between her dismissal and her new position.
It does not mean she will resume prosecuting federal criminal cases in Manhattan. Instead, the retroactive reinstatement addresses the financial and employment consequences of her unlawful termination.
Furman also ruled that the administration violated the Fifth Amendment's due process protections, the Administrative Procedure Act and the constitutional separation of powers.
These findings represent a significant legal victory for Comey, although the government can continue challenging the decision.
The Justice Department said it disagreed with the court's reasoning and would appeal when the case reaches the appropriate procedural stage.
First Amendment Claim Remains Unresolved
Comey's lawsuit also raises a separate First Amendment claim involving alleged political retaliation.
She maintains that her termination was connected to her father's public disagreements with Trump or political beliefs attributed to her.
James Comey has been a prominent critic of the president since Trump removed him as FBI director in 2017. The former FBI chief has also faced criminal proceedings brought during Trump's second administration.
One federal case against him was dismissed after a judge determined that the prosecutor responsible for bringing the charges had been unlawfully appointed.
Another case involves a social media photograph showing seashells arranged to form the numbers "86 47." Federal prosecutors interpreted the message as a threat directed at Trump, the 47th president.
James Comey has denied wrongdoing in the criminal cases.
Although the dispute involving her father provides important background, Furman did not determine that Maurene Comey was fired in retaliation for his political disputes with the president.
Instead, the judge found sufficient grounds to rule her dismissal unlawful based on the government's failure to comply with applicable federal statutes and constitutional protections.
Additional legal proceedings will address her remaining First Amendment claim.
Ruling Could Affect Other Federal Employment Cases
The decision comes amid several legal challenges brought by federal prosecutors and former FBI employees who lost their jobs during Trump's second administration.
Some former employees have alleged that they were dismissed because of their involvement in investigations or prosecutions that became politically controversial.
The administration has defended its authority to oversee the executive branch and remove officials who exercise federal prosecutorial responsibilities.
Comey's case addresses a related but distinct question: whether constitutional presidential powers allow the government to disregard employment protections established by Congress.
Furman's ruling says those protections continue to apply to covered assistant U.S. attorneys, even though they work within the executive branch.
The decision does not automatically resolve other employment lawsuits. Different federal positions can be governed by different removal requirements, and individual cases may involve separate facts.
Attorneys representing Comey welcomed the ruling as an affirmation that government officials must comply with federal law.
They described the decision as a victory for civil servants and the constitutional limits placed on government power.
The case is expected to continue as the court considers the unresolved First Amendment claim. Once that issue is addressed, the Justice Department may pursue its planned appeal, potentially bringing the dispute over presidential removal powers before a higher federal court.