Judge orders DOJ to pay back wages to fired prosecutor Maurene Comey
A federal court in Manhattan ruled the 2025 termination was unlawful, granting retroactive reinstatement and compensation through December of that year.
By Vikram Harrison ·
Federal courts in Manhattan have determined that the Department of Justice violated statutory protections when it removed a senior prosecutor from her position last summer. Judge Jesse Furman issued the ruling on Monday, finding that the agency's actions regarding Maurene Comey were unlawful under federal employment laws.
The court ordered the Department of Justice to grant Comey retroactive reinstatement as an assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The order covers the period from her termination on July 16, 2025, through December 20, 2025. Furman inferred that Comey accepted other employment by the end of that period, which capped the duration of the back pay award.
Comey served in high-profile cases before her dismissal, including prosecutions involving Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Sean Combs. Her legal team argued that her removal stemmed from President Donald Trump's personal history with her father, former FBI Director James Comey, who was fired in 2017. The lawsuit claimed the department provided no legitimate reason for her exit.
Furman rejected the department's position that the attorney general holds unlimited power to dismiss prosecutors without cause. The judge found that then-Attorney General Pam Bondi could not remove Comey at will, and that current Attorney General Todd Blanche could not ratify the action after the fact. The ruling specifically addressed the Civil Service Reform Act, which mandates that prosecutors receive advance written notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond before termination.
The DOJ conceded in the proceedings that Comey's termination was not based on her performance. Furman noted that the department ignored specific procedural steps required by law, including the provision of a written decision detailing the reasons for removal. The judge described the government's statutory argument as bordering on frivolous because Comey had consistently received excellent performance reviews from supervisors and peers.
Legal representatives for Comey issued a statement describing the outcome as a victory for civil servants and the rule of law. They quoted the court's reasoning that accepting unlimited executive power would unsettle the constitutional system's checks and balances. The lawyers emphasized that the decision reaffirms that the president is not above the law in the context of executive employment decisions.
The Department of Justice stated it disagrees with the decision and plans to appeal in due course. The White House referred to a post by the DOJ's Rapid Response account on X, which argued that the ruling obstructs President Trump's constitutional authority to fire individuals who wield executive power on his behalf. An appeal will proceed after Furman issues a final judgment in the case.
The judge reserved judgment on Comey's claim that her firing violated her First Amendment rights. Furman gave her until November 9 to file arguments explaining why that claim should not be dismissed as moot given the favorable order on other grounds. James Comey, who is currently under federal indictment, continues to seek dismissal of that case while his attorneys argue his innocence.
In a note to colleagues after her firing, Comey wrote that the ability to fire a career prosecutor without reason could allow fear to seep into the decisions of those who remain. She urged her peers to fuel the fire of righteous indignation at abuses of power and to remain committed to seeking justice for victims.
The case is currently in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. The next scheduled step involves Comey's deadline to submit arguments regarding the status of her First Amendment claim. The DOJ has indicated it will move forward with its appeal once the final judgment is entered on the record.
