The president of the United States was just hit with a court loss that he desperately, desperately wanted to avoid. Well, his administration did. You know, Maureen Comey, the daughter of former FBI director James Comey, the one man in Washington DC who gets under Donald Trump's skin more than anyone. Well, she was just reinstated by a federal judge. The Trump Department of Justice tried to fire her. She sued back, fired back, and well, now a federal judge says that her firing was complete retaliation, was wrong, was illegal, she has to get her job back. And this Trump Justice Department should she want it. And while the White House is not happy, the president himself is furious. He is furious behind the scenes over the fact that his arch nemesis's child will soon have to work for him once again. Make sure to subscribe. We're on the road to a million subscribers. Like, comment, share.
Let's talk about Judge Furman's decision today in the Southern District of New York. If you don't know who Maureen Comey is, Maureen Comey served as a prosecutor in one of the most powerful prosecutor offices in the entire country, the Southern District of New York. She prosecuted some of the worst people in the world, some people who are behind bars, sex traffickers, murderers, rapists. She was a prosecutor and well, the Trump administration fired her because her last name was Comey. Today, Judge Jesse Furman issued a decision that lawyers are going to read in their legal books for years to come. I'm going to read it with you and kind of break down parts of it. It's a 55-page decision. We're not going to go through all 55 pages. Starts by saying, 'Under Article 2 of the Constitution, the executive power is vested in the president who must quote take care that the laws be faithfully executed.' The appointments clause, which is also part of Article 2, provides that he may be assisted in that task by officers of two types: principal officers who are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and inferior officers whose appointment Congress may by law vest in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of department.
Congress by statute has vested the appointment of a USAO in the attorney general, the head of the Department of Justice. Congress by another statute called the Civil Service Reform Act or CSRA also limited when and how US attorneys, not to mention millions of other executive branch employees, may be removed from office. They specifically said that they could only be removed only for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service and only after receiving certain procedural protections including notice and an opportunity to be heard. What he's saying in this paragraph is essentially that USAOs are a special type of employee. Like other federal employees, you can't just fire them just because you want to fire them, just because you don't like their last name. They have certain protections that they have to go about before being able to be removed. The question at the heart of this case is whether these limitations on the removal of a USAO are consistent with Article 2 and the constitutional separation of powers.
The plaintiff in this case is Maureen Comey, who served for nearly 10 years as an AUSA in the criminal division of the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. She was assigned some of the country's highest profile cases and consistently received the highest accolades from supervisors and peers alike. On July 16, 2025, she received an email from DOJ officials in DC terminating her employment pursuant to Article 2 of the Constitution. She then sued against DOJ and others challenging her termination. She alleges that she was unlawfully terminated solely or substantially because she is a daughter of FBI Director James Comey, the former FBI director and longtime foe of Donald Trump. The merits of Comey's case are now squarely before this court presented by way of cross motions for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12C of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants argue, defendants are the Justice Department, that her claim should be dismissed because her termination was lawful. Comey argues the opposite, saying, 'No, no, no, it wasn't lawful. It was unlawful.' And the court rules for this reason that follow: the court concludes the defendants are wrong. First, Comey's removal was not authorized by any statute. It violated the CSRA.
The attorney general is authorized to remove an AUSA, but the attorney general is also limited by law and can only do so for certain reasons. Number two, and their argument that Article 2 bars Congress from regulating the removal of a USAO flies in the face of nearly two centuries of Supreme Court precedent rooted in the appointments clause and as a result, Comey is entitled to a judgment of matter of law on her central claims that she was terminated in violation of the constitutional separation of powers and federal law. So, not only does this court grant retroactive reinstatement and back pay from the date of her termination through December 20th, 2025, which will make her whole for the period during which she was unlawfully terminated and ensures that she suffers no adverse employment action, but also grants her request for a declaration that Trump violated separation of powers, violated the Administrative Procedure Act and violated her Fifth Amendment rights. And as a result, she gets back pay for all of that period, for that, I don't know, nine months or so or six months or so that she was terminated. Trump is furious about this. He wanted her fired. He wanted her gone. Not only did she get reinstatement for that period, she also is getting back pay now. And well, it's only getting worse. But first, a quick word from our sponsor.
But first, a quick word from our sponsor. And well, if you know anything about me, you know that I love cats. And that's why I'm excited to be sponsored for this video by a company called Smalls. Now, you may not know this, but vet bills can rack up thousands of dollars. But the good thing is Smalls may actually help offset some of those vet bills. Did you know that most cat foods out there are using meat byproducts and cut their food with cheap grains, fillers, and artificial ingredients? Basically, stuff that isn't great for your cat. Big pet food does this all the time. Why? Because it's cheaper to make. But what they save on cost, your cat eventually pays with their health. And so that's why Smalls is so important. And well, the reviews are off the chart. Garrett S. said, quote, 'It seemed like our cat, Pepper, who was 16 years old, was on her way out. Her ribs were starting to show, her gait was no longer crisp, her appetite was off, and her coat was dull and beginning to get matted. After two months of the Smalls diet, she has put on three plus pounds. Her coat is shiny, and she runs up and down the stairs in our house. She's not quite a kitten, but she no longer seems on death's door. Thank you for helping us bring her back.' Smalls is great. Highly recommend. It's a fresh cat food company. It's protein-packed recipes made with preservative-free 100% human-grade ingredients you'd find in your fridge and it's delivered right to your door. Since switching to Smalls, folks have seen a major improvement in their cat health and their cat lifestyle. Your cat's health and longevity starts with what they eat. For a limited time, because you are a Parnas Perspective listener, get 60% off your first order plus free shipping and free treats for life when you head to smalls.com/parnas. One last time, that's 60% off your first order plus free shipping and free treats for life when you head to smalls.com/parnas. Now, back to the conversation. Highly recommend you checking it out. You know what else he isn't happy about? He isn't happy over the fact that his numbers are worse than Obama's. And well, just take a listen.
