Judge Smacks DOJ Illegal Move

Department of Justice seal on American flag background — Photo: Mehaniq / Shutterstock

A federal judge just ordered the Trump Justice Department to put a fired prosecutor back on payroll, and the ruling reads like a rebuke of how the firing happened in the first place.

Quick Take

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ruled on October 26, 2026, that the Justice Department illegally fired Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey.
Comey is the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey and helped prosecute the Jeffrey Epstein case.
The 55-page decision orders back pay and reinstatement retroactive to her July 2025 firing, through December 20, 2025, when she took another job.
The Justice Department had argued the Attorney General could remove her at will under Article II and federal statute.

What The Termination Letter Actually Said

Maurene Comey received a termination letter in July 2025 that gave almost no reason at all. It said she was being fired “pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States”. No performance issue. No misconduct claim. No specific cause listed anywhere in the letter.

Judge Furman found that silence legally significant. A termination letter citing only a constitutional article, with nothing else attached, left Comey and the court with no factual basis to evaluate whether the firing followed the law at all.

Why The Judge Said The Firing Broke The Law

Furman’s ruling did not rest on one narrow technicality. He found the Justice Department violated the Civil Service Reform Act, separation-of-powers principles, and Comey’s Fifth Amendment due-process rights, all in the same decision. That is a wide net of legal failures for one personnel action, and it suggests the government’s paperwork problems went deeper than a single bad letter.

The government tried three separate defenses, and the judge rejected each one. Prosecutors argued Attorney General Pamela Bondi could fire Comey without cause, that a later Attorney General could ratify the decision after the fact, and that the firing itself implied a legitimate cause existed. Furman found none of those theories held up under the statute or the Constitution.

The Government’s Actual Legal Argument

The Justice Department’s position was more specific than a vague claim of presidential power. Court filings state that Bondi directed Comey’s removal under Article II and 28 U.S.C. § 542, arguing the Attorney General can remove an assistant U.S. attorney without cause under that statute. Department lawyer Tyler Becker also pointed to a recent Supreme Court decision expanding presidential control over federal agencies, arguing employees who exercise core executive power must be removable at will.

That Supreme Court case, decided this past summer, broadened the president’s authority to fire certain executive officials. But Furman apparently found it did not stretch far enough to cover a career line prosecutor handling criminal cases rather than policymaking. The distinction between a policy-setting official and a working prosecutor turned out to matter a great deal in this ruling.

The Remedy The Court Actually Ordered

Furman did not stop at declaring the firing illegal. He ordered retroactive reinstatement and back pay running from the termination date through December 20, 2025, the day Comey started other employment. That is a concrete financial remedy, not just a symbolic finding, and it puts a real dollar figure on what the department now owes her.

A Family Name That Shapes The Story

Maurene Comey cannot be separated from her last name in this story, and reporters have not tried. She is the daughter of James Comey, the former FBI director President Trump fired in 2017 and has criticized repeatedly since. She also helped prosecute Epstein-related cases, giving her a public profile well beyond a typical line prosecutor.

That family connection fuels obvious speculation about motive on both sides. Comey’s allegations that politics drove her firing remain allegations, not proven facts established in the ruling itself. But a termination letter citing nothing beyond a constitutional clause, aimed at a prosecutor with her last name, invites exactly the scrutiny it is now getting.

A U.S. district judge ruled the DOJ firing of prosecutor Maurene Comey was unlawful, citing limits on executive removal powers and ordering reinstatement. https://t.co/RXyFgOd7H3 pic.twitter.com/KwdMEwNxud

— Missouri Lawyers Media (@MoLawyersMedia) October 27, 2026

Whether the department appeals, and whether this ruling holds up at the Second Circuit, remains the open question. For now, a federal judge has put a dollar figure and a legal label on a firing the government defended as routine executive authority, and that label is “unlawful.”