US court rules firing of prosecutor Maurene Comey unlawful — The Guardian
US federal judge Jesse Furman ruled that the dismissal of assistant federal prosecutor Maurene Comey from the Department of Justice without stated reasons was unlawful. Comey worked in the Southern District of New York and participated in cases that resulted in the convictions of Ghislaine Maxwell and Sean Combs, The Guardian reports.
Justice Department arguments rejected
The Department of Justice argued that Article II of the US Constitution, which defines presidential powers, allows Donald Trump and the attorney general to dismiss career prosecutors who are not political appointees.
However, Furman rejected this position. He ruled that no law authorized such a dismissal and that the decision violated the Civil Service Reform Act. The judge also stated that the department's arguments contradicted nearly two centuries of US Supreme Court precedent. In his view, accepting the defendants' position would disrupt the balance embedded in the country's constitutional system.
More current news is available on the UA.News Telegram channel Telegram.
Lawsuit and possible appeal
Maurene Comey filed a lawsuit after being dismissed in September 2025. According to her, on July 16 she received a letter notifying her of the immediate termination of her employment, without prior notice or an explanation of the reasons. According to court documents, Jay Clayton, then the US Attorney in Manhattan, told her only that the decision had come from Washington and that he could provide no further explanation.
The Department of Justice said that the dismissal had been initiated by former US Attorney General Pam Bondi and was subsequently confirmed by her successor, Todd Blanche. Comey's lawyers and the president's critics argued that she may have been dismissed because of her family relationship with her father, former FBI director James Comey, whom the source describes as a longtime Trump opponent.
Lawyers interviewed by the publication believe Furman's ruling could be persuasive for other courts in similar cases, although it is not binding precedent. At the same time, they expect the Department of Justice to appeal the decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
