Trump DOJ broke the law by firing Maurene Comey, judge rules

By Adele Rutherford · Reporting from Atlanta · October 26, 2026

Judge Jesse Furman ordered the reinstatement of prosecutor Maurene Comey, ruling that the Department of Justice used a flawed theory of executive power to unlawfully fire her.

Judge Jesse Furman of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan did the only thing a district judge can do when the government tries to rewrite the Constitution from the bench. He said no. The Department of Justice is wrong. In his ruling on October 26, 2026, Judge Furman found that the firing of assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey in July 2025 was unlawful. The government did not just make a mistake in personnel management. It attempted to invent a new and expansive theory of executive power to bypass the law. By treating a career prosecutor like a personal aide, the Department of Justice tried to dismantle the very protections that keep the law independent of the person holding the office.

The invention of absolute power

The Department of Justice based its case on a theory of unchecked authority. According to reporting from CNBC, the government argued that then-Attorney General Pam Bondi possessed the authority to remove a federal prosecutor “at will.” In employment law, "at will" means a worker can be terminated for any reason, or no reason at all, without legal recourse. The government further argued that under Article II of the Constitution, the president has the power to fire Comey without restriction. They claimed that Congress is barred from regulating the removal of federal prosecutors because these officials exercise presidential powers that are “conclusive and exclusive.”

This is a dangerous shortcut. Judge Furman wrote that this argument sought “to overturn nearly two centuries of Supreme Court precedent.” He noted that the court is bound to follow those precedents unless the Supreme Court overturns them. The government also tried to hide behind the Civil Service Reform Act. They argued the firing was an implicit determination that Comey was removed “for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.”

But the record does not support a claim of inefficiency. As The Guardian reports, Maurene Comey consistently received “the highest accolades from supervisors and peers alike.” She served as an assistant federal prosecutor for 10 years. She led critical cases involving Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Sean “Diddy” Combs. To claim that a high-performing career official was fired for the "efficiency of the service" is a legal fiction. Judge Furman found the termination violated the Constitution’s separation of powers, which is the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. He also found it violated Fifth Amendment due process, the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights owed to a person.

A pattern of familial targeting

The law does not care about the names of the parties, but the record shows the names mattered here. Maurene Comey is the daughter of former FBI director James Comey. The lawsuit filed in September 2025 alleged the firing resulted from President Donald Trump’s “well-known and longstanding vendetta against James Comey.” This is not a new conflict. The Firing of James Comey (2017) established a pattern of the executive removing investigative officials based on personal grievances.

The administration is currently continuing this campaign. James Comey is being prosecuted for an Instagram post featuring seashells forming the number “86 47.” While his legal team argues the photo was not a true threat, the prosecution remains active. This familial targeting is part of a broader purge. Axios reports that Pam Bondi removed DOJ employees who worked on cases involving the Jan. 6 riot or the president's classified document case. On October 15, 2026, nine former FBI agents and intelligence personnel sued the administration for similar unlawful firings.

The dossier reveals that Pam Bondi's tenure has been defined by a desire to reshape the department's core functions. In February 2025, she issued a memorandum reviving the federal death penalty. By March 2026, she signed a proposed rule to overhaul certification procedures for state capital counsel systems. This shows a pattern of using administrative rules to achieve political ends. When the administration could not find a legal reason to fire Maurene Comey, they simply tried to argue that the law did not apply to them.

The mechanism of obstruction

This case is the Saturday Night Massacre all over again. In 1973, President Richard Nixon ordered the firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox to stop an investigation into the president's own conduct. The shared mechanism is the same: the executive branch attempts to remove a prosecutor to obstruct the law. When the government argues that prosecutors serve "at will," they are arguing that the law is a tool of the president, not a check on him.

We have seen this tension before. The Mueller Investigation highlighted the conflict between the executive's claim of absolute removal power and the judicial check on that authority. The current administration is attempting to extend the logic of Trump v. United States, which discussed presidential immunity for official acts, to the firing of career staff. But there is a difference between immunity from prosecution and the power to unlawfully terminate a civil servant.

The danger of this "at will" tool is that it creates a culture of fear. Maurene Comey wrote to her colleagues that if a career prosecutor can be fired without reason, "fear may seep into the decisions of those who remain." While her use of words like "tyrant" and "righteous indignation" is too emotive for a courtroom, the underlying legal point is sound. The 2008 Financial Crisis showed that career prosecutors must remain independent from political pressure when handling high-profile cases. If the prosecutor's job depends on the president's mood, the prosecution is no longer independent.

Judge Furman ordered the retroactive reinstatement of Maurene Comey and granted back pay from the date of her firing through December 20, 2025. The Department of Justice stated it "disagrees with this decision and will appeal in due course." They will likely take this to the Second Circuit, hoping for a panel that views Article II as a blank check.

The government's argument is a trap that would destroy the civil service. If the president can unilaterally extinguish statutory protections for a prosecutor, he can do it for any official who finds a crime in the West Wing. A rule that only works while your people hold power is not a rule; it is a preference. By rejecting the DOJ's theory, the court protected the machinery of the state from the whims of the man running it. The law is not a suggestion, and the president is not the law.

Trump DOJ broke the law by firing Maurene Comey, judge rules

The invention of absolute power

A pattern of familial targeting

The mechanism of obstruction

Sources