Sign in Subscribe
Legal News

Judge orders Maurene Comey reinstated with back pay. Her father is charged a third time.

Judge Furman ordered Maurene Comey retroactively reinstated with back pay. The same day, a third case against her father, James Comey, was unsealed.

Judge orders Maurene Comey reinstated with back pay. Her father is charged a third time.
Stock photo, not from the event described. Photo by Miles Smith on Unsplash

The same day a federal judge ruled that the Justice Department unlawfully fired prosecutor Maurene Comey, prosecutors made public a third criminal case against her father, former FBI Director James Comey. Both stories land on Monday, October 26, and both turn on the same question: can the government punish a career official because of who they are or who they are related to?

A judge orders Maurene Comey reinstated, with back pay

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan ruled that the Justice Department's July 2025 firing of Maurene Comey, a longtime assistant U.S. attorney, violated the separation of powers, the Administrative Procedure Act and her Fifth Amendment due process and statutory rights, NBC News reported. He ordered her retroactively reinstated and granted back pay from her firing through December 20, 2025, when she started a new job. The amount has not been set, according to PBS NewsHour.

The Justice Department argued that prosecutors carry out the president's powers and can be removed at will. Furman wrote that position "flies in the face of nearly two centuries of Supreme Court precedent," and that "Congress granted the Attorney General power to remove Comey," but "Congress imposed limits on that power," NBC reported. He has not ruled on her First Amendment claim and asked both sides for more briefing. He said he is inclined to dismiss it as largely moot because she is in private practice and no longer seeks to return, PBS reported.

A Justice Department spokesperson said the department "disagrees with this decision and will appeal in due course." Comey's lawyers called the ruling a reaffirmation that "the President is not above the law." The case is Comey v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 1:25-cv-07625 (S.D.N.Y.). We covered the ruling earlier today.

James Comey is charged a third time

Prosecutors filed a criminal information against James Comey on October 5. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden of the District of Columbia unsealed it on October 26, NBC News reported. An information is a charging document filed by prosecutors, unlike an indictment, which a grand jury votes on. According to NBC, Comey has not been indicted in this case and can be tried on the information alone only if he waives indictment.

The filing charges him with transmitting national defense information and conspiring to do so. It alleges that in October 2016, while he was FBI director, he directed staff to speak with a New York Times reporter and thereby illegally passed along classified information, according to NBC. Comey denies wrongdoing.

His lawyers filed a motion to dismiss before the case was unsealed. They argue that both counts rest on the October 5, 2016 disclosure, that the 10 years the government had to bring the case ran out, and that an information is not an indictment. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said two teams of prosecutors investigated the matter in Trump's first term and both declined to bring charges. A Justice Department spokesperson said the filing was meant to pause the statute of limitations, called that practice "widely recognized" and said multiple federal appeals courts have approved it. We could not confirm that claim independently, so treat it as the department's position. The spokesperson would not comment further. McFadden noted that the facts "have been subject to considerable press coverage."

His first case, over alleged false statements to Congress, was dismissed after a judge found the prosecutor who brought it was invalidly appointed. A second case, in North Carolina, charges him over a post of seashells arranged as "8647." He denies wrongdoing in that one too, and it is pending.

What this means for you

If you work for the federal government, the Furman ruling is the one to watch. A federal court has rejected, for now, the argument that the president's powers let the government skip civil service protections for a career prosecutor. The Justice Department says it will appeal, so the Second Circuit will likely decide whether that holds. If you are a private-sector worker, it is a reminder that rules protecting people from being fired for who they are related to or what they are assumed to believe only work if courts enforce them. We applaud this ruling. Public servants answer to the law, not to a president's grudges.

Sources

Read next

Comments ()