James Comey's Daughter and Former Diddy Prosecutor Scores Court Major Win as Judge Rules Trump DOJ Illegally Fired Her
Her cases included prosecutions involving Ghislaine Maxwell and Sean 'Diddy' Combs.
Oct. 27 2026, Published 6:05 p.m. ET
A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully fired former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey, finding that her dismissal violated the Constitution and federal law, RadarOnline.com can reveal.
U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ordered the Justice Department to reinstate Maurene retroactively and pay her lost wages through December 20, 2025. The department said it disagrees with the ruling and plans to appeal.
Judge Cites Constitutional and Legal Violations
Furman said the dismissal violated separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Maurene, the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, was dismissed from her post at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York in July 2025.
She argued that the government targeted her because of her father’s history of conflict with POTUS and her perceived political beliefs.
Furman ruled that Maurene’s firing violated the separation of powers, the Administrative Procedure Act, and her Fifth Amendment due process rights.
The judge said the attorney general has authority to dismiss federal prosecutors, but that power must be exercised "in a particular manner and only for certain reasons."
The ruling also pointed to Maurene's record as a prosecutor. Furman said she had been assigned some of the nation's highest-profile cases and had consistently received strong evaluations from supervisors and colleagues.
The Justice Department’s court filings said the dismissal decision was made by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Maurene's lawyers alleged in a September 2025 complaint that she was fired "solely or substantially" because of her father, her perceived political affiliation and beliefs, or both.
Maurene Comey Prosecuted High-Profile Cases
The judge found Maurene Comey’s Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated.
Maurene served as an assistant U.S. attorney in Manhattan and worked on cases involving Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Sean 'Diddy' Combs.
Her legal team welcomed the decision, saying in a statement that the victory belonged to Maurene, civil servants, and those "fighting for the rule of law."
Maurene previously said she was told only that her dismissal "came from Washington." The judge’s order provides for back pay from her July 2025 firing until Dec. 20 of that year, before she took a new position.
She joined the law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler as a partner in February 2026.
Justice Department Plans to Appeal
Maurene Comey is the daughter of Trump rival, James Comey.
A department spokesperson said the government disagrees with Furman’s decision and "will appeal in due course." The ruling does not end the dispute, and an appeal could put the legality of Comey’s dismissal before a higher court.
The case comes amid continuing legal disputes involving her father.
The Trump administration has brought charges against the ex-FBI boss, including a case alleging he lied to Congress that was dismissed after a judge found the prosecutor who brought it had been unlawfully appointed.
In a separate matter, federal prosecutors charged James over a 2025 Instagram post showing seashells arranged to read "86 47."
Prosecutors allege the phrase encouraged violence against Trump; James has denied wrongdoing.
Ruling Raises Questions About Federal Firings
Never Miss an
Daily updates from the heart of Hollywood, right to your inbox
By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you’re agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
James Comey has been accused of lying to congress.
Furman's decision could have broader implications for how the executive branch dismisses federal prosecutors, particularly when a firing is alleged to be politically motivated.
The judge’s ruling emphasizes that the attorney general’s authority is subject to legal limits and procedural requirements.
The Justice Department’s appeal is expected to test those limits further.
