No, your calendar isn’t lying to you. It’s 2026, but the Department of Justice (DOJ) is revisiting allegations that former FBI Director James Comey illegally disclosed classified information in 2016. Meanwhile, his daughter, former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey, scored a courtroom victory against the Trump administration: A federal judge ruled that her 2025 firing as an assistant U.S. attorney (AUSA) violated federal law and her constitutional rights.
The DOJ filed a charging document known as a “criminal information” in an effort to preserve its ability to prosecute James Comey before the statute of limitations ran out. Known as “tolling,” the request would allow federal prosecutors to attempt to indict James Comey despite being beyond the statutory limit. Two previous investigations into the allegations ended without charges.
Whether this latest effort leads to charges remains to be seen. For now, the Comey family has at least one legal victory to celebrate over Thanksgiving dinner: Maurene’s successful challenge to her firing.
Maurene Comey Wins Her Wrongful Termination Case
Maurene Comey was a career prosecutor with the DOJ, starting as an AUSA in the Southern District of New York in 2015. According to court filings, in addition to being tabbed for high-profile cases involving defendants such as Sean “Diddy” Combs, Senator Robert Menendez, Jeffrey Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell, Maurene Comey repeatedly received an “outstanding” rating in her annual reviews and earned peer accolades for her legal skills.
That changed in July of 2025, when she received an email from the DOJ stating she was terminated from her position effective immediately. The memo said she was fired “Pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution,” which the Trump administration later defended as a proper use of executive authority granted by the 2026 Trump v. Slaughter SCOTUS ruling, which overturned Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S.
Although her dismissal notice directed her to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), Maurene Comey instead challenged her firing in federal court. Her lawsuit alleged violations of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), the constitutional separation of powers, the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment.
U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ruled on October 26, 2026, that Comey’s firing violated the CSRA and the constitutional separation of powers. He rejected the DOJ’s argument that Article II allowed it to disregard statutory protections for federal prosecutors. Although the attorney general has authority to remove assistant U.S. attorneys, Furman explained, Congress may place limits on that authority, including requiring cause, advance notice, and an opportunity to respond.
Furman ordered retroactive reinstatement and back pay covering the period from her firing through December 20, 2025, when he inferred she had accepted another job. He also rejected the DOJ’s argument that recent Supreme Court decisions had undermined precedent allowing Congress to restrict the removal of inferior officers.
DOJ Revisits James Comey Leak Allegations
The DOJ’s latest effort concerns allegations that James Comey illegally disclosed classified information in 2016 about a Yahoo surveillance program. Unsealed court documents revealed that prosecutors filed a criminal information to preserve their ability to bring charges before the ten-year statute of limitations expired earlier this month. Investigations opened in 2017 and 2019 ended without charges.
This is not the Trump DOJ’s first criminal case against James Comey. In November 2025, a judge dismissed charges that he lied to Congress and obstructed a congressional proceeding, ruling that Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney who brought the case, had been unlawfully appointed. The government has appealed that dismissal.
In a separate pending case, Comey is accused of threatening President Trump through an Instagram photo showing seashells arranged to spell “86 47.” Prosecutors interpret the numbers as a threat to kill Trump, the 47th president. But “86ing” something is a common term in restaurant kitchens that lets front-of-house servers know a menu item is out. Comey, who claims he meant no threat, is seeking dismissal of the charges.
Trump’s long-running feud with James Comey provides the backdrop for both cases. Maurene Comey alleges that the administration fired her because of her father. Note that this claim is distinct from Furman’s ruling that her dismissal was unlawful. Whether or not any retaliation claim is ultimately established, her victory underscores a limit on presidential power: Invoking Article II does not give the administration a free hand to disregard statutory protections for federal prosecutors.
For James Comey, the next question is whether the DOJ’s latest attempt to prosecute him can survive a court challenge. His daughter’s victory does not answer that question, but it offers a fitting reminder: The administration can keep taking the Comeys to court. It cannot dictate the outcome.
