U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York denied the Trump administration's motion to dismiss a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by Maurene Comey, a former federal prosecutor fired from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York[1]. Furman ruled that the case belongs in federal district court rather than before the Merit Systems Protection Board, allowing the litigation to move forward[2].
The jurisdictional question turned on the stated basis for Comey's termination. Because the Department of Justice dismissed her "pursuant to Article II" of the Constitution, invoking presidential removal authority rather than standard civil service procedures, Furman found that the MSPB, which handles disputes under the Civil Service Reform Act, lacked the authority to adjudicate the claim[2][3]. The distinction matters: employees removed through ordinary civil service channels must exhaust administrative remedies before an MSPB panel before seeking federal court review. Employees fired under a direct constitutional removal claim, the court held, are not bound by that requirement[1][2].
Comey is the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, whom President Trump dismissed in 2017. She was among a cohort of prosecutors let go by the administration in early 2025, a period that also saw the removal of career attorneys connected to prior investigations and prosecutions[3]. Her lawsuit names the DOJ as defendant and alleges the firing was retaliatory and unlawful[1]. The administration argued the MSPB was the correct forum and urged dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, a threshold argument Furman rejected[2].
Furman scheduled an initial pretrial conference for May 28, setting the procedural clock in motion[1][2]. The government retains the option to appeal the jurisdictional ruling or to contest the merits of the retaliation claim as litigation continues. The administration has not, based on available reporting, indicated whether it will seek interlocutory review.
The ruling carries implications beyond this case. Dozens of career federal employees have been terminated under similar Article II rationales during the current administration[2][3]. Furman's analysis, if it holds, would give those employees a direct path to federal district court, bypassing an administrative tribunal that critics contend is slower and less favorable to plaintiffs. The May 28 conference will likely set a discovery schedule and clarify whether early dispositive motions are anticipated.
Comments (0)