Maurene Comey Sued DOJ on Retaliatory Firing Now Arguments on Reinstatement & Discovery

Maurene Comey Sued DOJ on Retaliatory Firing Now Arguments on Reinstatement & Discovery by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack SDNY COURTHOUSE, Sept 18 – Maurene Comey sued the DOJ for being fired, saying that "the politically motivated termination of Ms. Comey—ostensibly under “Article II of the Constitution”—upends bedrock principles of our democracy and justice system. Assistant United States Attorneys like Ms. Comey must do their jobs without fearing or favoring any political party or perspective, guided solely by the law, the facts, and the pursuit of justice."   Complaint on Patreon here The firing took place soon after the mix verdict in US v. Sean Combs in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and amid since-denied requests for unsealing of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell grand jury transcripts. The discovery in this case, and any trial, could get into both issues. Docketed on November 4, "the initial pretrial conference in this matter is hereby ADJOURNED to December 4." Inner City Press live tweeted it, here Judge Furman: I'm inclined to stay discovery pending inquiry into my jurisdiction. I note this case might involve requests for deposition of high Administration officials, who made the decisions. But first let's see the defendants' motion to dismiss, I think Maurene Comey's lawyer Nicole Gueron: We'd like to change your mind. We'd like discovery into who made the decision. A search of her name in the files of decision making officials. The White House stated that the decision was not made by the President but by DOJ AUSA Lesperance: I disagree that the Government has conceded that the discovery that will be sought is appropriate. We said the mechanisms also exist in the MSPB. Even this limited discovery is not as simple as to search - whose file? Executive privilege Furman: I'm not going to actually rule now but I'm inclined to stay with my initial position, and stay discovery. On May 26, in the run-up to an in-person appearance, the US Attorney's Office filed an answer, with a one page ratification of decision to terminate, on Patreon here. On May 28, Inner City Press covered the status conference, including: OK - inside, NDNY lawyer Karen Lesperance says firing was authorized by Article II. Judge Furman (paraphrasing) Could a President fired all black employees? Or all white employees? NDNY's Lesperance: That would seem to raise some concerns. Comey's lawyer Jennifer Ellen Blain: This is breathtaking NDNY's Lesperance: We'll file our brief by June 5. Then they could ask for discovery to respond. Comey's lawyer Blain: Firing her for her father's name violates the First Amendment. Judge: Reply to Aug 21... Late on June 5 DOJ filed its motion for judgment on the pleadings, leading with "Comey was Removable at Will Under Article II of the Constitution. Plaintiff was Removable at Will Under 28 U.S.C. § 542. Plaintiff’s Removal Under Article II and 28 U.S.C. § 542 Qualifies as Removal for “Efficiency of the Service” Under the CSRA" - 34 page memo on Patreon here On August 18 Judge Furman set an oral argument, a month out: "ORDER: The parties shall appear for oral argument on the cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings in Courtroom 24B of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street on September 18, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. SO ORDERED." Inner City Press was there on September 18 and live tweeted, here: All rise! Judge Jesse Furman: Please sit. Let's start with the Article II argument, then the statutory arguments. AUSA Tyler J. Becker: It was made clear in Trump v. US that criminal prosecutions are in the President's power. It belongs to him, not bureaucrats AUSA Becker: AUSAs who appear to prosecute on behalf of the US - she admits her cases were high profile matters, fraud and the like - so she must be removable at will. With the power to appoint comes the power to remove. Judge: Under Section 542, isn't it the AG? AUSA: We rely on the vesting clause. Judge Furman: But Congress can impose restrictions on the removal of inferior officers, no? AUSA: In the case they cite, that wasn't the issue. Judge Furman: Do we agree Ms. Comey was an inferior officer or employee? A: Yes Judge Furman: On patents judges, wasn't removal subject to review by a principal officer? AUSA: The Supreme Court made them inferior officers. This case is distinguishable. Judge Furman: Perhaps Morrison was improperly decided. Even Justice Scalia... Judge: All eight Justices who participate in that case agreed on this. DOJ's Becker: The vesting clause is the relevant source of authority. Judge Furman: You think Morrison is abrogated by Slaughter? Backer: Yes. DOJ's Becker: The Supreme Court has overruled Humphrey's Executor. Judge Furman: The Slaughter decision said it was not determining the fate of those not before it. The Supreme Court has the prerogative to revisit. Perhaps you are teeing it up for that DOJ's Becker: This was directed by former AG Bondi, but it was ratified. Judge Furman: But you are moving for judgment on the pleadings, and your pleading are silent on that. How can I rule on the pleadings? Ratified by Mr. Blanche? I can assume whatever I want Judge Furman: A lawyer could be fired for taking a position that is contrary to the policy of the United States, no? DOJ's Becker: Of course if an AUSA said something the Government didn't agree with, it would be firing for cause. We're not arguing that here. DOJ Becker: This is about prospective, like removing FTC commissioner from another party. We are limiting ourselves here to prosecutors who appear in court for the US. Judge Furman: Ms. Blain? Jennifer Blain of Clarick Gueron Reisbaum LLP: May it please the court Maurene Comey's lawyer Blain: She is being fired because of her DNA. Note that line AUSAs are in a rigid structure. The CSRA does not intrude on the President's authority. In the Trump case the Court said the President has authority to prosecute. not this Judge Furman: Let me press you. Could Congress say that an AUSA should be removed if he or she does or doesn't do something? Comey's Blain: You don't need to decide that today. Slaughter was about an independent commission Judge Furman: Isn't this line of cases threatened? Comey Blain: That does not mean overruled... Judge Furman: Let's turn back to Mr. Becker on the statutory issues. You concede she was an outstanding AUSA? DOJ's Becker: Her performance review say that Judge Furman: Tell me why 542 trumps the CSRA, no pun intended DOJ Becker: The CSRA does not change the President's power under 542(b). Judge Furman: But until now hasn't DOJ taken the opposite position, back to the 1970s? Comey's Blain: She is being punished because her father is a political enemy of the president. We need a declaratory judgement that civil servants retain First and Fifth Amendment rights, and for name clearing. The Framers spoke on "corruption of blood" DOJ's Becker: She is only ask for reinstatement for a few months for retirement purposes. Judge Furman: What about her First Amendment and reputation claims? DOJ's Becker: She relies on perceived political party, and her father. That's not enough in the 2d Circuit Judge Furman: Are you say the court couldn't inquire into a removal for racial reasons? DOJ's Becker: 542(b) is restricted to Constitution Acts. But Article II, not reviewable. Judge Furman: Even on race? DOJ's Becker: Article II does not permit that inquiry Judge Furman: The social media influencer, we are not using her name, linked Ms. Comey to the Deep State. What about that? DOJ's Becker: I'm not sure what her claim about that it. A declaratory judgment on name-clearing could address that. Comey's lawyer: On discovery, they say they will not search Executive Office of the President records. We may need to move to compel. Extra / analysis on X for Substack here and Substack here The case is Comey v. US Department of Justice, et al., 1:25-cv-7625 (Furman) *** Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron. Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station, NY NY 10013 Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.  Copyright 2006-2025 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com