Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Firing of FEMA CFO on Civil-Service Grounds

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff held that the Trump administration violated federal law when it dismissed Mary Comans, FEMA’s former chief financial officer, in February 2025. The judge ruled the president could not rely on Article II authority to bypass statutory notice and procedural safeguards that protect career civil-service employees. While the decision does not order Comans’ reinstatement, it grants her a “name-clearing” hearing and signals a setback for the administration’s broader effort to expand presidential removal power over executive-branch personnel.

Newsweek

The case revives a long-standing debate over the “unitary executive” theory, which asserts that elected presidents possess sweeping authority to remove subordinates. The administration has cited a recent Supreme Court ruling that allowed President Donald Trump to remove FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, arguing that the precedent expands removal powers. However, scholars note that the Slaughter decision concerned “principal officers,” whereas the FEMA case involves protections for “inferior officers” and lower-ranking civil-service workers—areas historically shielded by the 1886 United States v. Perkins decision and subsequent precedent spanning roughly 140 years.

Newsweek

The Justice Department declined to comment on the ruling, and the Department of Homeland Security offered no response when contacted. The Trump administration has argued that the president’s constitutional authority should permit removal of agency officials without adhering to civil-service procedures, a view it has pursued across multiple agencies during the second term.

Newsweek

Legal scholars and critics contend that civil-service protections are essential to prevent political retaliation and ensure continuity. Christine Chabot, a Marquette University Law School professor, emphasized that “if tenure protections for inferior officers are constitutional, it should follow that tenure protections for employees (civil service) would also be constitutional.” Critics also point to the controversy surrounding the reimbursement of tens of millions of dollars to New York City for migrant-housing expenses, which DHS described as “egregious payments.”

Newsweek

• “for the last 140 years... the Supreme Court has affirmed the president does not have plenary power to remove inferior officers.” — Judge Michael Nachmanoff

Newsweek

• “greatly” increased presidential power. — Donald Trump, Truth Social post

Newsweek

• “If tenure protections for inferior officers are constitutional, it should follow that tenure protections for employees (civil service) would also be constitutional,” — Christine Chabot, Professor, Marquette University Law School

Newsweek

• “The judge said the Supreme Court has long recognized Congress' ability to establish removal procedures for what the Constitution refers to as "inferior officers" and other federal employees.” — Judge Michael Nachmanoff

Newsweek