Judge rules Justice Department unlawfully removed former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey

A federal judge in Manhattan ruled Monday that the Justice Department acted unlawfully when it removed Maurene Comey, a former assistant U.S. attorney, in July 2025. U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Southern District of New York granted her retroactive reinstatement and back pay running from the date of her removal through Dec. 20, 2025. The court inferred that was when she accepted her current job.¹

A Justice Department spokesperson told CBS News the department “disagrees with this decision and will appeal in due course.” Comey’s lawyers called the ruling a “hard-earned victory,” the outlet reported, and said in a statement that the decision “reaffirms our bedrock system of checks and balances: the President is not above the law.”²

What the court found

Comey worked as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York from Nov. 16, 2015, until July 16, 2025, according to the 55-page opinion in Comey v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 25-CV-7625. On July 16, 2025, she received a one-page memorandum removing her “[p]ursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States.” The court wrote that it is undisputed she received no advance notice, reason or chance to respond, and that the department admitted her removal “was not ‘for cause’ and was not based on her performance.” Comey’s complaint alleges she was fired because her father is former FBI Director James B. Comey, because of her perceived political affiliation and beliefs, or both.¹

The department argued that a 1966 law making assistant U.S. attorneys “subject to removal by the Attorney General” allowed the firing, and that any congressional limit on removing federal prosecutors would intrude on the president’s Article II power. In its May 2026 answer, the department said then-Attorney General Pamela Bondi directed the removal and that then-Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche later ratified it.¹

Furman rejected both arguments. He held that the attorney general’s removal power is limited by the Civil Service Reform Act, which allows removal of covered employees “only for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service” and requires notice and an opportunity to respond. The department acknowledged in its brief that those procedures were not followed, the opinion says. On the constitutional question, Furman wrote that the department’s position conflicts with “nearly two centuries” of Supreme Court precedent allowing Congress to limit the removal of inferior officers, which a lower court is bound to follow, and that the argument also fails on the merits.¹

What the court ordered

• Judgment for Comey on four counts: separation of powers, the Administrative Procedure Act and two due process claims.¹
• Retroactive reinstatement and back pay through Dec. 20, 2025, including restored retirement contributions and personnel records amended to show she resigned on that date rather than was fired.¹
• A declaration that the department violated the separation of powers, the Administrative Procedure Act and her Fifth Amendment due process and statutory rights.¹
• Judgment for the department on a separate ultra vires count, and dismissal of four other counts, two as moot and two based on concessions by Comey.¹
• A ruling on Comey’s First Amendment claim was put off. The court said it is inclined to dismiss it, largely because the relief already granted likely covers it, and gave Comey until Nov. 9, 2026, to argue otherwise. Discovery is stayed.¹

The court also reserved decision on whether Comey is entitled to costs and attorney fees. She is not seeking to return to her former post, the opinion says.¹

What the records do not show

• The opinion does not set a back pay amount; the court reserved that question.¹
• The opinion makes no finding on why Comey was removed; the claim tied to that question, under the First Amendment, remains pending.¹
• The department’s statement, as reported by CBS News, did not say when it would appeal.²