Maurene Comey Sues Trump DOJ, Bondi Over Firing
Comey accuses the DOJ of firing her “solely or substantially because her father is former FBI Director James B. Comey, or because of her perceived political affiliation and beliefs, or both.”
Maurene Comey, the daughter of disgraced former FBI Director James Comey, has sued the Department of Justice and Attorney Pam Bondi over her firing as a federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York in July.
Elizabeth Stauffer covered the firing. She mentioned Comey worked on numerous high-profile cases such as Sean “Diddy Combs, Jeffrey Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell.
Comey claims the firing came a “day after the U.S. Attorney’s Office had asked her to take the lead on a major public corruption case and just three months after her latest receipt of an ‘Outstanding’ review.”
The email had no explanation except that the termination is “‘[p]ursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States.'”
“Ms. Comey’s termination—without cause, without advance notice, and without any opportunity to contest it—was unlawful and unconstitutional,” according to the complaint. “In addition to her fundamental constitutional rights, Ms. Comey had statutory protections under the Civil Service Reform Act (“CSRA”) that governed how and why she could be terminated, including specific prohibitions against termination for discriminatory reasons such as political affiliation. Her termination violated every one of those protections.”
Comey insists the DOJ has “no legitimate explanation” for her firing.
Instead, Comey accuses the DOJ of firing her “solely or substantially because her father is former FBI Director James B. Comey, or because of her perceived political affiliation and beliefs, or both.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
IMO the President should have the right to fire anyone in the executive branch for any reason or no reason.
Agree completely. With a few exceptions, the Court has largely supported this position as well (Myers v United States, for instance). But, there have been a number of carveouts created by Congress and by Judicial fiat over the years. Collective bargaining agreements that create impediments to termination as well as civil service laws that protect kleptocrats like Anthony Fauci are wholly unconstitutional, IMO.
You have to also think about the need for some stability.
If it was completely unfettered, then every president could fire at will with each new term (and even more frequently). That’s no way to build a functioning workforce, especially with regards to national security/military and infrastructure (you know, the traditional Constitutional roles of a Federal Government).
Imagine cleaning out every single desk and locker and starting from scratch….hey terrorist, what an opportune time to attack! hey murderer, great time for a crime spree!
However that is not the case. Not only are there specific statutory restrictions on firing executive employees, but there is the fact that it is unconstitutional for any government entity to fire anyone, or deny anyone any benefit, as punishment for exercising a constitutional right.
Thus a police department is not allowed to fire an office worker for saying that she hoped for the president’s assassination. That is the law for all government entities, federal, state, and local. And that includes the president.
A prosecutor can be fired for exercising poor judgment in overcharging a person resulting in acquittal on the major charges
Apples and oranges. Milhouse is correct — you can’t terminate a government employee for exercising a constitutional right.
But you can terminate someone for poor performance (that includes poor judgment).
The trick is to do the latter and avoid the former.
Dear God
They can exercise their constitutional right, but not as an employee of the President.
That is specifically not the case. The law is very clear on that. If you think it isn’t, then explain why a police department can’t fire an employee for advocating the president’s assassination.
It is unconstitutional for a government to take any action against someone — to deprive someone of any government benefit — for exercising a constitutional right.
Again, look up the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. The government may not condition any benefit on waiving a constitutional right.
Article II
Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Those laws should be held unconstitutional.
explain why a police department can’t fire an employee for advocating the president’s assassination.
unions
The Legislative cannot dictate the actions of the executive anymore the the vice versa
The apple didn’t fall far from the tree let alone the orchard of entitlements.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but
“Federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president and can be dismissed using a president’s removal power”
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-28-judiciary-and-judicial-procedure/28-usc-sect-541/
A job is not a “benefit.”
A job is a bilateral contract.
“then explain why a police department can’t fire an employee for advocating the president’s assassination.”
I can’t explain that in any way whatsoever.
Must have been some blackrobed moron creating a “case law.”
Milhouse – can you give me an example of your fireman-free-speech position?
I’ve found a few cases but none exactly on-point:
A fire department employee being fired for Charlie Kirk comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T-VWkoX9WE
A New Orleans fireman being disciplined
https://www.wbrz.com/news/public-officials-in-louisiana-across-country-disciplined-for-comments-on-charlie-kirk-s-assassination/
( if he can be disciplined then he could be fired
A resignation
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/fire-chief-resigns-over-grossly-inappropriate-post-about-trumps-assassination-attempt/3913229/
To DC: advocating assassination is not covered by the 1A. Directly advocating for imminent violence is not protected. ‘Hate speech’ is protected (our Attorney General, Ms. Bondi, alas got it wrong the first two times she tried to explain herself).
Hodge, Rankin v McPherson.
Not a fireman, a police department employee. She worked in the office and had no contact with the public. She expressed her opinion in the office, so it was known to her coworkers. She was illegally fired for this, and the department was forced to reinstate her with full back pay.
rbj1, that is the constitution. Firing someone for exercising a constitutional right is unconstitutional.
destroy, no, it is not unions, it’s the United States constitution.
MarkS, that is not the case. The executive is bound to obey the law that the legislature makes. But in this case it’s not even the legislature, it’s the constitution. Neither the legislature nor the executive can override it.
Henry, a job is a benefit. And it is black letter law that a person cannot be deprived of it for exercising a constitutional right. That’s not “some blackrobed moron”, it’s the Supreme Court of the United States. And it’s the law of the land.
Dr Steve, advocating assassination absolutely is covered by the 1A, just like all advocacy, no matter what it is.
So is “directly advocating imminent violence”. Only actual incitement is not protected, and mere advocacy is not incitement. The fact that the violence advocated is imminent doesn’t change that; imminence is only one element of incitement. To be incitement it must also be both subjectively intended and objectively likely to produce that result.
didn’t Bill Clinton fire every US Attorney in one fell swoop?
It is common for a new administration to fire all or nearly all DA’s.
US Attorneys
And Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers.
Milhouse would say that was “for cause.”
But being fired for having behaved in ways that are incompatible with the vision of the current administration is also “for cause,” even if the administration’s vision is considered “political.”
Imagine a Harmeet Dhillon in charge of the civil rights division of the DOJ under Obama. Do you think she’d survive in the position, or would she be removed due to not aligning her work with the administration? Obviously, she’d be removed for behaving at odds with the administration’s (political) goals, a completely political decision. Allowing resistance within the government to the elected POTUS’ agenda would be injurious to democracy, as the voters are denied the administration for which they voted. The electors have spoken. They elected Trump to exercise his judgment in the pursuit of his administration’s agenda.
The teachers union should suffer a similar fate.
Dave. what behavior do you allege was incompatible with the vision of the current administration? The letter firing her did not cite any such behavior, so I don’t understand what you’re referring to.
That’s the whole point of her claim. If there had been such behavior cited then she would have something to contest; without even an allegation of such behavior she can only suppose she was fired because of who she is.
Yes. As did Mr. Obama. They were permitted to do so, as the U.S. Attorneys are expressly political appointees and do not enjoy due process.
The law attempts to obfuscate this with the governors of the Fed Reserve, and certain other high level people, where the Congress sought to protect them from being terminated by the president, particularly a president who might (as did Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama) decide, “out with the old, in with the new.” That is why Lisa Cook is suing; she states that she is protected by law from being fired ‘without cause’, and Mr. Trump says that such a law is an unconstitutional infringement on his Article II powers. The USSC will ultimately have to provide an opinion on that.
Ms. Comey, the subject of this article, claims that she is protected, at the very least, by ‘due process’ — she has to be given a reason for termination and at least some way to rebut or refute the underlying reason for dismissal. This also will get to the ultimate power of Article II, section 1, of the unitary power of the executive. The question is whether the Congress has some say in how people employed by government may be terminated from their positions.
My opinion: it depends.
Yes, he can do that. No one questions it (at least until Bush II did it).
But (1) she’s not a USA, she’s a AUSA, so she’s covered by civil service laws; and (2) even someone who can be fired on a whim can’t be fired for exercising a constitutional right.
Here she’s not claiming that. What she seems to be claiming is that she was fired not for anything she said or did but because of who she is. The only relevant constitutional provision I can think of is an extension by analogy from the corruption of the blood clause.
So are you saying he could promote her and then fire her in that scenario?
He’d need the senate’s consent to make her a USA. And then he’d look utterly stupid if he fired her for no apparent reason.
Job search is not going well.
She may have a case – my understanding is that USAs (US Attorneys) are at-will political appointments and can be fired without cause. The next level down is AUSAs (Assistant USAs) – which was her position – and are career prosecutors covered by civil service rules and cannot be fired without cause.
She successfully prosecuted as lead prosecutor both Epstein and Maxwell after the previous leniency debacle where Epstein got off suspiciously lightly. While she did not at the time have final authority to OK that plea deal she was part of the prosecution team that initially OK-ed it.
IDK if she was a dissenting voice in private but she certainly didn’t dissent publicly – or threaten to quit over it.
However she did later receive some criticism for her stance in the release process of Epstein and Maxwell material under her control.
She was firmly against it.
Her arguments were privacy of the victims, and any theoretical needed retrial of Maxwell, Epstein being dead / moot.
I suspect it was that second bit that displeased the admin and led to her firing.
She successfully prosecuted them to protect others.
Why would that displease the admin? They are doing the same thing with the Epstein files. I don’t really see how that’s it.
The case will be before a woke NY jurist and jury, so we already know the outcome at the trial court level and the 2nd Circuit.
Put her in A office in the basement and give her filing work
Reassign her to Nome, Alaska.
Leave Alaska alone
A little Northern Exposure?
American Samoa comes to mind.
Leave America Samoa alone
Put her in the basement, give her menial tasks
American Samoa would be a vacation. I’m still in favor of Nome Alaska. 🙂
Truth or Consequences NM
And give her an endless bad reviews.
Or maybe it’s just because you suck, Maurene.
In what way does she suck, and how do you know?
If she has a contractual right, the remedy is damages, not an injunction.
I never got an outstanding performance review but I’m not a woman.
obviously there must be another reason
think hard
Is she actually wrong?
As of today Bondi has shown not a single reason for firing this woman and there is nothing in her record to imply she deserved it.
You can’t hold people accountable for their father or their last name.
I think the best defense is Comey was fired without cause. Period. No Comment. Not discussion. Zero.
Let her make up the reasons. As long as the position is She is fired. It works.
If she goes down this avenue and it is found that they have cause, then maybe they should stop all benefits that she would get from the government.
Comeys are just sucking money and time from people the government should be helping . Like every position I have had, it is “at will”
No, it is not at will. She has civil service protections. And in the absence of any apparent reason she absolutely can go to court and allege invalid reasons, and the court will tend to believe her, because why else would she be fired? The government will have to come up with a valid reason or it will not be believed and it will lose.
Could it be that she used her office to spy for her father?
Anything could be, but no one has yet alleged it.