Key Takeaways

1. Maurene Comey is challenging DOJ's argument that Assistant U.S. Attorneys can be removed without cause under Article II and federal law.
2. A federal judge pressed both sides Friday over whether civil-service protections limit presidential or attorney general removal authority.
3. The case remains unresolved, with competing motions pending and discovery continuing in federal court.

By Samuel López | USA Herald

NEW YORK - Former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey returned to the center of a significant constitutional employment dispute Friday, arguing that the Justice Department's legal justification for firing her goes far beyond what federal law and the Constitution permit.

Comey, the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey (who was also fired from his job), sued the Justice Department after she was terminated from her position as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York on July 16, 2025.

Her termination memorandum identified Article II of the Constitution and "the laws of the United States" as the authority for removing her. According to the federal court's own account of the case, the government did not initially state that Comey had been terminated for misconduct, deficient performance or any other cause.

That distinction has become the heart of Comey v. United States Department of Justice, Case No. 1:25-cv-07625, pending before U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman in Manhattan.

On September 16, 2026, Comey filed her Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of her Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Comey alleges that she was removed because of President Donald Trump's longstanding hostility toward her father, or because of perceived political beliefs or affiliations attributed to her. The government disputes her legal theory and maintains that her removal was lawful.

DOJ's current argument is substantial. In its motion for judgment on the pleadings, the government contends that Article II gives the executive branch authority to remove prosecutors exercising executive prosecutorial power. DOJ separately relies on 28 U.S.C. § 542(b), which provides that each Assistant U.S. Attorney is "subject to removal by the Attorney General." The government argues that the Civil Service Reform Act does not override that authority.

Comey's lawyers disagree. They argue that career Assistant U.S. Attorneys are not simply political appointees who can automatically be dismissed for any reason and that federal civil-service protections, along with the First and Fifth Amendments, continue to impose meaningful limits on the government's removal power.

At Friday's September 18 hearing, Furman closely questioned DOJ's theory.

According to courtroom reporting, DOJ attorney Tyler Becker argued that prosecutors exercise executive authority on behalf of the United States and therefore must ultimately remain removable by the executive branch. Furman pressed the government on whether Congress may impose removal protections on inferior officers and whether DOJ's interpretation of § 542 conflicts with the government's historical treatment of career prosecutors.

Comey's attorney Jennifer Blain countered that her client was effectively punished because of her family relationship with James Comey, telling the court that Comey was being fired "because of her DNA." Comey's position is that Article II does not eliminate statutory employment protections merely because an employee works within the executive branch.

The dispute also presents a potentially consequential question extending beyond Comey herself: whether the executive branch's constitutional authority over prosecution permits the removal of career federal prosecutors without the ordinary protections Congress has created for certain federal employees.

No final ruling was issued Friday.

Furman has already rejected an earlier attempt by the government to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds. In an April 28 opinion, he concluded that Comey's challenge could proceed in federal district court rather than being forced exclusively through the Merit Systems Protection Board process. In that decision, Furman described Comey as, "by all accounts, an exemplary Assistant United States Attorney."

The court delivered another important procedural ruling on August 25 when Furman rejected DOJ's request to halt discovery. The judge said the discovery sought by Comey was relatively targeted and added that it appeared likely at least some of her claims would survive the pending motions and require factual development.

That does not mean Comey has won the case.

Both sides have motions before the court, and the constitutional question concerning executive removal authority remains unsettled in this litigation. Comey is seeking, among other remedies, declaratory relief, reinstatement, back pay and other relief arising from her termination.

Enjoyed this report? Stay connected to the stories shaping America's courts, government and emerging legal landscape. Get exclusive investigative reporting, breaking legal developments, national-security analysis and original USA Herald coverage delivered directly to you through the USA Herald newsletter.

👉 Follow USA Herald on X @RealUSAHerald