U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman ruled that civil-service law protected Maurene Comey from dismissal, a decision legal experts say may influence similar cases even though it does not bind other judges.
In an Oct. 26 opinion and order, Furman found that the Justice Department (DOJ) violated the Civil Service Reform Act when it fired Comey in July 2025. Comey, the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, had worked as an assistant U.S. attorney for nearly 10 years.
Furman said the law requires the department to have a work-related reason tied to effective government service before dismissing covered employees. It also gives those employees a chance to learn the grounds for dismissal and respond. He rejected the DOJ’s argument that the president’s authority under Article II of the Constitution allowed federal prosecutors to be removed without those protections. The opinion said the law’s reach extends to millions of executive branch employees.
The order also calls for Comey’s employment record and benefits to be restored through Dec. 20, 2025, and for back pay. The amount has not been set. The ruling benefits Comey and places the back-pay obligation on the DOJ. It follows EconoTimes’ earlier report on the court’s back-pay order.
Elizabeth Wolstein, a partner at Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP and a former Manhattan federal prosecutor, told The Guardian that judges in later cases could find Furman’s reasoning useful but would not have to follow it. Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani also told the newspaper that judges handling similar disputes may take the ruling into account. Furman warned that adopting the DOJ’s position could revive the “spoils system” Congress sought to end.
Carl Tobias, the Williams chair at the University of Richmond School of Law, told The Guardian he expects the DOJ to appeal to the Second Circuit and could then seek Supreme Court review. The Associated Press reported that the department disagreed with Furman’s ruling and would appeal.
Furman did not resolve Comey’s First Amendment claim. He gave her until Nov. 9 to explain why it should not be dismissed; the DOJ may file an opposition within a week after she submits her brief.
