U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ruled that the Department of Justice (DOJ) owes Maurene Comey back pay.
On Monday, the federal judge rejected the Trump administration’s argument that it had constitutional authority to fire former FBI Director James Comey’s daughter, who had been working as a prosecutor until last year.
“Defendants’ argument is contrary to an unbroken line of Supreme Court decisions dating back almost two centuries, and the Supreme Court itself has not formally overruled any of those decisions. That is sufficient, in itself, to reject the argument,” reads a portion of Furman’s 55-page opinion.
He argued that his court does not have the jurisdiction to “overrule” prior Supreme Court cases “holding that Congress can regulate and limit the removal of inferior officers,” which would validate the Trump administration’s position.
Comey will not be returning to the position at the DOJ, as she has already taken another job since being terminated, but this ruling retroactively reinstates her employment and requires the department to provide her with back pay. It also “restores pension benefits for the four-month period before she took that new role” and “orders an update to her personnel file to reflect that she resigned instead of saying she was fired,” according to The Hill.
The DOJ reacted to the decision in an X post:
The Department disagrees with this decision, which obstructs President Trump’s constitutional authority to fire individuals who wield executive power on his behalf. We intend to appeal the decision in due course.
— DOJ Rapid Response (@DOJRR47) October 26, 2026
“The Department disagrees with this decision, which obstructs President Trump’s constitutional authority to fire individuals who wield executive power on his behalf. We intend to appeal the decision in due course,” the department stated.
The Obama-appointed judge largely avoided the First Amendment argument posed by Comey’s lawsuit, which alleges she was removed from her former position as a Southern District of New York criminal prosecutor due to perceived political and ideological connection to her father. Furman instead chose to focus on the suggestion that firing her resulted in the violation of Congressional restrictions regarding the termination of U.S. attorneys.
While the DOJ contended in its defense that these restrictions are not constitutional, Furman argued that the recent Supreme Court decision on congressional firing protections didn’t extend to people like Comey.
“Defendants’ contention that recent Supreme Court decisions have fatally undermined that precedent is not one that this Court, as a lower court, may accept. It is also without merit. Indeed, to accept Defendants’ argument would be to unsettle the very equilibrium established by this Nation’s constitutional system,” he explained.
