Dismissal from the civil service due to political beliefs, whether one’s own beliefs or the beliefs of one’s family, is blatantly unlawful. Congress has long protected civil servants from discrimination based on their personal political beliefs, and all Americans have a First Amendment right to their beliefs.
But President Trump’s relentless attempts to politicize the federal workforce hit a troubling low with one particular high-profile firing meant to instill fear in civil servants.
The dismissal of federal prosecutor Maurene Comey, seemingly because of her perceived political affiliation and her father’s, was part of the Trump administration’s campaign of political retribution designed to chill dissent. This move stifles free speech across the government. Civil servants must be free to hold and express political opinions without fear of reprisal, and political alliance with the president cannot be a requirement for public service.
Campaign Legal Center submitted an amicus brief calling on the courts to provide a check on this executive overreach by declaring this firing unlawful to stop Trump’s unconstitutional actions and prevent further attempts to stifle the freedoms of civil servants. On October 26, 2026, a federal judge ruled that Comey’s firing was unlawful and ordered that she be retroactively reinstated to her job with backpay.
What happened to Maurene Comey?
Maurene Comey, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, was dismissed in July 2025 by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Rather than citing a legitimate reason for her dismissal, such as performance, the email simply cited the president’s self-proclaimed authority to fire her.
Comey’s termination, as she alleges in her federal suit, was politically motivated and intended to serve as retaliation against her father, former FBI director James Comey, an outspoken critic of the Trump administration.
This is not a simple matter of unlawful dismissal — it is one of many examples of the president and his political allies ordering political retribution against civil servants, like they did when threatening former assistant special agent in charge with the FBI Michael Feinberg with demotion due to his private friendship with a Trump political “enemy,” Peter Strzok.
As with Comey’s case, Feinberg seems to have been targeted solely for a private relationship rather than a merit-based concern and was unlawfully targeted at the direction of the president and his partisan allies.
Why was the MSPB not a fair option?
Comey deserved a fair trial to determine whether she was improperly fired based upon her father’s public statements and own assumed political beliefs. But the administration attempted to deprive her of this right as well by insisting that her case be heard by the compromised Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
The MSPB was originally created by Congress to protect nonpartisanship and fairness for government employees and to provide a space for civil servants to challenge unlawful removals. The board, meant to be bipartisan and shielded from the president, is intended to act as a nonpartisan judge on employment cases and prevent anyone from unfairly losing their job.
But the MSPB is not operating as intended: Contrary to Congress’s instruction, the president fired the lone Democratic member of the MSPB without cause. Moreover, he has claimed authority to direct the MSPB’s legal decisions — meaning, if desired, Trump could direct the board to declare Comey’s dismissal lawful despite what facts she may present.
Comey cannot receive a fair decision from a board directed by the person who orchestrated her firing. Forcing her to proceed before this biased Board undermines the intention of Congress to provide civil servants with a fair, impartial hearing.
Channeling her case to the MSPB not only would have forced Comey to undergo an expensive, drawn-out and ultimately unfair process; it would have instilled fear across the civil workforce that, if they too face unlawful dismissal based on political affiliation, they would also be denied timely opportunities for justice.
The courts agreed; on April 28, 2026, the District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss Comey’s case and channel it to the MSPB, ensuring that the case continued in the federal courts. If the president seeks to fire nonpartisan civil servants without merit-based reasons and justifications, the opinion explains, then those civil servants have a right to seek recourse in the federal courts.
What chilling effect does this case have on free speech and nonpartisanship in the civil service?
This firing didn’t just harm Comey — it also harms any civil servant who now fears the same retribution.
If civil servants view Comey’s firing as a roadmap for what will happen should they express a personal political opinion in their private lives that the president disagrees with, they’re much more likely to not express that opinion at all.
This goes against the very idea of nonpartisanship and free speech that the system of American democracy runs on and risks a return to a government filled only with those willing to politically align with the president. This unique threat of widespread harm to all civil servants made it critical that the District Court heard Comey’s case.
As Campaign Legal Center argued in our brief filed on behalf of Michael Feinberg and Justice Connection — a coalition of former DOJ employees concerned with Trump’s weaponization of government and threats to the rule of law — the courts can and should prevent extreme abuses of presidential power that threaten First Amendment rights.
All civil servants have the right to live free from fear of political retaliation. This is why it was so important for the courts to swiftly decide on her case.
Why are cases like these important to the rule of law?
Campaign Legal Center has repeatedly called on the courts to respond to such cases of abuses of power with swift action. When Trump attempted to politicize the nonpartisan federal workforce during the 2025 government shutdown, CLC and partners successfully persuaded the court to declare his actions unconstitutional.
We will continue to meet each unique threat to the rule of law and the First Amendment in court and fight to protect the principles and freedoms at the heart of our democracy. Join us today.
A prior version of this blog was published on April 28, 2026. This blog was updated on October 26, 2026.
