Full Breakdown
Maurene Comey’s Unlawful Dismissal: Federal Judge Rules Against Trump Administration
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
On October 26, 2026, U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman ruled that the Trump administration’s termination of Maurene Comey, an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, violated the Constitution’s separation-of-powers clause, the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), and her Fifth Amendment due-process rights. The judge ordered retroactive reinstatement and back pay from the July 16, 2025 firing through December 2025.
Background & Context
Maurene Comey had served as an assistant U.S. attorney since 2015, prosecuting high-profile cases against Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and Sean “Diddy” Combs. Her father, former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey, is a longtime critic of President Donald Trump. The Justice Department argued that the Attorney General could remove an AUSA at will under Article II of the Constitution, a claim the administration has used to justify dismissals of career prosecutors it deems disloyal.
Timeline
- July 16, 2025 – Maurene Comey is dismissed via a memo citing Article II authority.
- September 2025 – President Trump posts on social media urging Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute James Comey.
- October 26, 2026 – Judge Furman issues a 55-page decision finding the firing unlawful and granting back pay.
Data & Statistics
- Tenure as an assistant U.S. attorney: roughly 10 years.
- Back-pay awarded: from July 16, 2025 through December 2025 (about five months).
Official Statements & Responses
- **Judge Jesse M.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- The judge did not decide Maurene Comey’s First Amendment claim that her dismissal was retaliation for protected speech; he requested additional briefing on that issue.
- The DOJ’s argument that Article II grants unrestricted removal authority remains contested, with no definitive appellate ruling yet.
Verbatim Quotes
- “To accept defendants’ argument would be to unsettle the very equilibrium established by this nation’s constitutional system,” — Jesse Furman, judge
- “Yes, the Attorney General is authorized by law to remove an AUSA. But the Attorney General (and anyone to whom the Attorney General delegates that authority) is also limited by law, namely the CSRA, to do so only in a particular manner and only for certain reasons. And Comey’s removal indisputably violated the CSRA,” — Jesse Furman, judge
- “Defendants’ argument that [Constitution] Article II bars Congress from regulating the removal of AUSAs [assistant U.S. attorneys] flies in the face of nearly two centuries of Supreme Court precedent,” — Jesse Furman, judge
- “Defendants invented a new and expansive theory of executive power,” — Jesse Furman, judge
- “First, Comey's removal was not authorized by any statute; to the contrary, it violated the CSRA [Civil Service Reform Act],” — Judge Jesse Furman
What’s Next
The Justice Department has indicated it will appeal the decision, likely raising the statutory-removal argument before a higher court. Further briefing on the First Amendment claim is scheduled, and the court will determine whether Maurene Comey is entitled to reinstatement beyond retroactive back pay.