Justice Department seeks to dismiss Maurene Comey’s lawsuit over her firing.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has formally moved to dismiss a high-profile lawsuit brought against it by former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey, arguing that she failed to properly exhaust administrative complaint procedures before initiating legal action. The government detailed its position in court documents filed Monday, just days before a crucial hearing scheduled for Thursday in Manhattan federal court. This development marks a significant turn in a case that has drawn national attention, not only due to Comey’s distinguished career but also because of her familial ties to former FBI Director James Comey, a prominent critic of the previous administration.
Maurene Comey, who served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and handled some of the nation’s most sensitive and high-profile criminal cases, including those against Sean "Diddy" Combs, Jeffrey Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell, filed her lawsuit in September. She challenged her July termination by the Trump administration, labeling it "unlawful and unconstitutional." Her legal team contends that her dismissal was "politically motivated" and represents an overreach of presidential authority, directly linking it to the years-long public clashes between President Trump and her father.
The Justice Department’s argument for dismissal hinges on procedural grounds. In a joint letter submitted Monday to Judge Jesse M. Furman, which outlined the positions of both Comey’s lawyers and the chief of the civil division of the federal prosecutor’s office in Albany, the government asserted that Comey’s lawsuit is not appropriately before the court. The DOJ maintains that she did not fully comply with mandatory administrative procedures, specifically those requiring the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to first consider her claim. The MSPB is an independent agency in the executive branch that serves to protect federal merit systems against partisan political and other prohibited personnel practices, and to ensure due process for federal employees. The government rejected Comey’s claim that the notice of appeal she filed with the board in August was futile, insisting that the MSPB remains "the appropriate forum to determine whether, as Ms. Comey claims, her removal was a prohibited personnel action or an arbitrary and capricious agency action."
However, Maurene Comey’s attorneys countered in the filing that the MSPB "lacks expertise to adjudicate this novel dispute" and is not an appropriate forum for her case. They argue that "this case raises foundational constitutional questions with respect to the separation of powers" that extend beyond the board’s purview. Furthermore, they contended that it was "no longer true" that the board functions independently of the president, implying that its neutrality could be compromised in a politically charged case of this nature. A lawyer representing Maurene Comey referred CBS News to the letter on Tuesday, declining further comment at this stage.
The political backdrop to Maurene Comey’s firing is impossible to ignore. Her father, James Comey, was famously terminated as FBI Director by then-President Trump in 2017, amidst the department’s ongoing investigation into alleged ties between Trump’s associates and Russia. The elder Comey’s firing ignited a firestorm of controversy and led to a prolonged public feud with the former president. The intertwining of the Comey family with high-stakes political battles has become a recurring theme in Washington.
Adding another layer to this complex narrative, James Comey himself faced legal challenges recently. In September, he was indicted by a grand jury on two counts related to testimony he provided to Congress in September 2020. He pleaded not guilty to the charges. However, in a dramatic turn of events last week, a federal judge ordered the criminal charges against him to be dismissed. The dismissal was based on the grounds that Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney who secured the indictment, was unlawfully appointed to the role. Attorney General Pam Bondi swiftly responded to the ruling, informing reporters that the Justice Department would "be taking all available legal action, including an immediate appeal." The timing of these events—Maurene’s lawsuit challenging her firing and the simultaneous legal saga of her father—underscores the intense scrutiny and pressure on the Comey family within the current political landscape, fueling arguments of politically motivated actions.
Before her abrupt firing in July, Maurene Comey had established an impressive track record at the high-profile U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan, where she had worked since 2015. Her lawyers highlighted in their lawsuit that she was fired just one day after being "asked to take the lead on a major public corruption case." This detail, coupled with an "outstanding" review from her supervisors only months prior, casts her termination as particularly arbitrary and raises questions about its true motivations.
Comey’s career at the SDNY was marked by her involvement in numerous significant prosecutions that captured national headlines. Among her most notable achievements, she secured the sex trafficking conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell, the former associate of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Maxwell was convicted in December 2021 on sex trafficking charges after a jury found she aided Epstein in the sexual abuse of underage girls and women. Epstein himself was found dead in his federal jail cell in August 2019, awaiting a sex trafficking trial, with his death officially ruled a suicide. Maxwell, 63, is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence at a federal prison camp in Texas, having been transferred there last summer from a facility in Florida.
Comey also played a pivotal role in the bribery convictions of former Senator Bob Menendez and his wife. Menendez, 71, is currently imprisoned in Pennsylvania and is scheduled for release in September 2034. Her involvement in such high-profile public corruption cases further solidifies her reputation as a formidable and effective prosecutor. More recently, two weeks before her firing, a jury convicted Sean "Diddy" Combs of prostitution-related charges, though he was acquitted of more serious sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges. Comey led the prosecution team in that complex and widely publicized trial. Combs, 56, is scheduled for release from prison in June 2028. These cases collectively demonstrate Comey’s dedication to justice and her capacity to handle intricate legal challenges under intense public scrutiny.
The jurisdictional complexities of Maurene Comey’s lawsuit have also been noteworthy. Last month, U.S. Attorney John Sarcone in Albany took on the case, indicating that his office would defend the Trump administration in the lawsuit. This move followed the recusal of prosecutors in Manhattan, where Maurene Comey had built her career and secured her numerous high-profile convictions. The recusal was a necessary step to avoid potential conflicts of interest, given Comey’s extensive professional relationships within the SDNY.
The upcoming Thursday hearing before Judge Furman will be a critical juncture in this legal battle. Should the judge grant the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss, Comey’s lawsuit challenging her firing would effectively end, at least at the federal court level, potentially forcing her to pursue her claims through the administrative channels of the MSPB or appeal the dismissal. Conversely, if the judge denies the motion, the lawsuit would proceed, allowing for discovery and a full airing of the substantive claims regarding the alleged political motivations behind her termination. This outcome would set the stage for a potentially protracted legal fight that could delve deep into the internal workings of the Justice Department and the executive branch’s hiring and firing practices, particularly concerning career federal employees.
Legal experts suggest that the case carries significant implications for the principle of prosecutorial independence and the protection of federal employees from politically motivated retribution. A decision in Comey’s favor could strengthen safeguards for federal civil servants, while a dismissal based on procedural grounds might be seen as upholding executive authority and the existing administrative review system. The intersection of constitutional claims, administrative law, and deeply entrenched political rivalries makes Maurene Comey’s lawsuit a landmark case, with its outcome keenly watched by legal scholars, political observers, and federal employees alike.
Joe Walsh and Jacob Rosen contributed to this report.
