The ruling and the DOJ's Article II argument

Judge Jesse Furman ruled this week that the Justice Department acted unlawfully when it dismissed Maurene Comey without cause - the Maurene Comey ruling at the center of a fight over executive power.

The department had argued that Article II of the constitution gave Donald Trump and his attorney general the right to fire line prosecutors, who are not political appointees. Furman rejected that position, finding that the firing was not authorized under any law and in fact violated the Civil Service Reform Act. According to the court, the department's reading would fly in the face of nearly two centuries of Supreme Court precedent and unsettle the constitutional equilibrium.

Who Maurene Comey is and how she was fired

Comey is the daughter of former FBI director James Comey and spent her career at the southern district of New York, where she won guilty verdicts in high-profile cases including against Ghislaine Maxwell and Sean "Diddy" Combs.

The dismissal unfolded this way:

• •On 16 July 2025, Comey received a letter stating her employment with the Department of Justice was terminated and she was removed from federal service effective immediately.
• •She filed suit over the ouster in September 2025, saying she received neither notice nor an explanation.
• •Per court papers, then-Manhattan US attorney Jay Clayton, when asked about it, told her: "all I can say is it came from Washington. I can't tell you anything else."
• •The DOJ said the firing was directed by former attorney general Pam Bondi and later ratified by her successor, Todd Blanche.

Critics contend Comey lost her job because of her father, a longtime Trump foe; this week the DOJ made public its third case against James Comey, after one prior proceeding was dismissed and another remains pending.

Reactions on both sides

Comey's legal team - Ellen Blain, Nicole Gueron and Deepa Vanamali at Clarick Gueron Reisbaum, and Margaret Donovan at Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder - said in a statement that "The Court's decision is a complete rejection of this administration's sweeping claim to unchecked executive power".

That was the view of Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond School of Law, who said the ruling vindicated Comey and set a valuable precedent.

The White House pushed back. Spokesperson Lauren Bis rejected allegations of weaponizing the justice department, saying: "Unlike Joe Biden, President Trump has not weaponized the Department of Justice against his political foes." She also claimed the country saw the largest decrease in violent crime in American history under Trump. The DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.

What happens next

Tobias said the government will appeal to the second circuit court of appeals, where he expects Furman to be affirmed, and that the administration would then likely appeal to the US supreme court. If the justices decline to hear the case, the lower appeals court decision would stand.

Legal observers see the ruling's reach differently. Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, pointed to Judge David Carter's Monday rejection in Los Angeles federal court of Trump's attempt to set aside 20,000 ballots in California as part of a pattern.

But he cautioned that several Supreme Court justices do not believe there should be many restrictions on presidential power, so the case is no guarantee of a check on Trump. "It is not binding at all, but it's certainly something that judges look to with similar or exact same facts," Rahmani said.

Elizabeth Wolstein, a partner at Schlam Stone & Dolan and former Manhattan federal prosecutor, agreed that if a ruling is well reasoned, "it is definitely going to be persuasive to another judge," though it does not bind them. Tobias called it an important precedent given that Comey was essentially summarily fired, while noting it is very clear the government will appeal.