New: Maurene Comey’s Dismissal Threatens First Amendment Rights for all Civil Servants, CLC Argues in Brief

Date
Body

Washington, D.C. — Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC), on behalf of Michael Feinberg and Justice Connection, filed a brief in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in a case brought by former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey claiming President Donald Trump ordered her dismissal because James Comey, former FBI director, is her father.

Ordering the removal of Comey because of her perceived political beliefs and familial connections, as CLC argues in our brief, is a clear act of unlawful retribution that violates her First Amendment rights and threatens the rights of more than two million civil servants working in 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.

"President Trump’s relentless attempts to politicize the federal workforce have reached new heights with yet another high-profile dismissal meant to instill fear and compliance across the federal workforce," said Danielle Lang, vice president for voting rights and rule of law at Campaign Legal Center. "Firing an accomplished civil servant for the crime of being related to a political adversary is a gross violation of the First Amendment. It is crucial that the court steps in with expediency and calls this firing what it is — unlawful political retribution."

Comey seeks to have her case heard by a federal court rather than the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), arguing that the MSPB is no longer independent from the president, as it was designed to be, and cannot give her a fair trial. As CLC argues, the federal courts have a duty and responsibility to protect civil servants from gross abuses of executive power.

"No civil servant should be fired because of who they associate with — whether it be their father or a friend," said Stacey Young, executive director and founder of Justice Connection. "Congress recognized nearly 150 years ago that government tasks were too important to be performed by loyalists. The law states that hiring, promotions and terminations should be based on merit — not sycophancy to political leadership."

"Apolitical public servants are a necessary precondition for the rule of law in our nation, and this is particularly true in those agencies which have the power to investigate the citizenry and, at times, charge and convict them of crimes," said Michael Feinberg, former FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge. "I am hopeful that our judicial system will recognize this in Ms. Comey’s case, and begin to restore a sense of normalcy to our civil service procedures."

The administration is attempting to deprive Comey of her day in court and argue that her case must be adjudicated by the compromised MSPB. The District Court should swiftly rule on this case and uphold First Amendment protections for civil servants as a fundamental principle of nonpartisan, representative government.

Follow the latest updates on this amicus brief via Campaign Legal Center’s case page.

Learn more about presidential overreach and the politicization of the federal workforce here.

###

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through law. We safeguard the freedom to vote, defend voters’ right to know who is spending money to influence elections, and work to ensure public trust in our elected officials.

Learn more about CLC. Don't miss out on our latest resources: Subscribe to President Trevor Potter's newsletter on LinkedIn or email, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events.

Issues
Ethics

Fighting for a Civil Service Free from Partisan Retaliation (Comey v. Department of Justice)

At a Glance

Maurene Comey was a prosecutor for the federal government. In July 2025, she was fired, seemingly because her father is James Comey, former director of the FBI and a vocal critic of the Trump administration. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a brief in support of Comey’s case to return to her job, emphasizing the need to reject this scheme of political retribution and protect the First Amendment freedoms of civil servants. 

Status
Active
Updated
About This Case/Action

Maurene Comey prosecuted some of the most high-profile cases in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York in recent years. She routinely received “Outstanding” performance evaluations and capably served as a nonpartisan civil servant. Nevertheless, without any performance-related justification or explanation, she was fired in July 2025.

Comey’s termination seemingly was politically motivated and intended to serve as retaliation against her father, an outspoken critic of the Trump administration. Congress has long protected civil servants from discrimination based on partisan affiliation and disciplinary actions based on employees’ speech or association outside of work.  

Comey sued the federal government seeking reinstatement to her position as a federal prosecutor. CLC, representing Justice Connection and Michael Feinberg, filed an amicus brief in support of Comey’s case.  

Our clients, Justice Connection and Michael Feinberg, are committed advocates for the faithful, ethical and nonpartisan enforcement of federal law, and they have been important voices sounding the alarm on abuses of power within the Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ).  

Justice Connection is composed of past DOJ employees concerned with the DOJ’s willingness to serve as a vehicle for unlawful political retribution.  

Michael Feinberg was an assistant special agent in charge with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). In June 2025, Feinberg was informed he would not receive a promotion, and likely be demoted from his position at the bureau, seemingly because he maintained a private friendship with a former FBI colleague who FBI Director Kash Patel and former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino deemed a political “enemy.”

In our amicus brief, CLC argues the district court should immediately decide Comey’s case to prevent a chilling effect on the First Amendment rights of other civil servants, whether through associating with a friend or family member with outspoken political views or speaking out about important civic issues in their private lives.

Typically, civil servants must challenge their removals before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), an adjudicatory body designed by Congress intended to be a “vigorous protector” of nonpartisanship and fairness in government employment policy. 

The Trump administration, however, has undermined the independence of the MSPB as an unbiased decisionmaker in numerous ways. The Trump administration wants to force civil servants to bring their cases of unlawful removals to the now-biased MSPB before they can get their day in court. CLC’s brief argues that the delay, expense and unfairness of the MSPB process would harm not only Comey, but other civil servants who are left to wonder whether any protection will be provided by the courts to stop such abuses of state power.

CLC’s brief argues that, when considering their jurisdiction over First Amendment cases, courts often consider harm to parties beyond the case. In the matter at hand, the consequences of Comey’s firing on the free speech rights of all civil servants is clear justification for swift intervention and ruling by the court.  

CLC Urges Return to Bipartisanship to Ban Congressional Stock Trading

Date
Body

Today, Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives announced new legislation that dramatically weakens a bipartisan, consensus proposal to prohibit members of Congress and their families from trading individual stocks. While this new legislation would stop lawmakers from buying additional stocks, it would fall short by allowing them to keep or sell the assets they already own — and retain the profits. It also would not prevent members of Congress from voting or acting in ways that benefit their existing holdings.  

Last month, House Democrats also jeopardized the bipartisan compromise on stock trading by introducing a separate proposal that does not have enough support to become law. That bill would have included the president and vice president in the stock trading ban.  

Kedric Payne, vice president, general counsel and senior director for ethics at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement:  

“Any legislation that allows lawmakers to hold onto their existing stocks is too narrow to address Americans’ real concern that elected lawmakers may make official decisions to benefit their pocketbooks instead of the public good. A bill that also bans trading by the president and vice president, meanwhile, is too broad because it undermines the chances of passing the reform voters care most about: stock trading by members of Congress.  

“Thankfully, there is a proposal on the table that strikes the balance for this moment: the Restore Trust in Congress Act. This consensus legislation was crafted during months of negotiations by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. It has more than enough support to pass, and it would make a significant improvement to our nation’s government ethics laws. Campaign Legal Center calls on Congress to return its focus to this bipartisan bill and set an example for the other branches of our government.”

###

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through law. We safeguard the freedom to vote, defend voters’ right to know who is spending money to influence elections, and work to ensure public trust in our elected officials.

Learn more about CLC. Don't miss out on our latest resources: Subscribe to President Trevor Potter's newsletter on LinkedIn or email, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events. 

Issues
Ethics

Campaign Legal Center and Protect Democracy Urge the U.S. Supreme Court to Uphold Mail-In Ballot Laws

Date
Body

Washington, DC — Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Protect Democracy filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court in the Watson v. Republican National Committee case to uphold each state’s constitutional ability to set rules for receiving and counting mail-in ballots.

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in Watson v. Republican National Committee, a case challenging a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they are received within five business days after an election. This challenge is a direct contradiction to the power that states have to set laws governing ballot receipt deadlines.

In 2022, led by Sens. Joe Manchin and Susan Collins, Congress passed the Electoral Count Reform Act (ECRA), which made substantial updates to post-Election Day processes originally established under the 1887 Electoral Count Act. Notably, Congress intentionally designed the ECRA not to disturb vote-by-mail and absentee ballot receipt deadlines set by states.

“Many states across the political spectrum give voters secure ways to exercise their freedom to vote by mail,” said Adav Noti, executive director at Campaign Legal Center. “The Supreme Court must uphold states’ authority to enact these long-standing laws that protect voters from being disenfranchised by mail delays outside their control.”

“The Constitution grants states both the authority and duty to administer elections, as the Founders believed states are best positioned to exercise this critical democratic role,” said Jane Bentrott, counsel at Protect Democracy. “Mississippi’s law is consistent with the Constitution, and it allows voters whose ballots are postmarked by Election Day to participate in our democracy.”

Follow the latest updates on this amicus brief via Campaign Legal Center’s case page.

###

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through law. We safeguard the freedom to vote, defend voters’ right to know who is spending money to influence elections, and work to ensure public trust in our elected officials.

Learn more about CLC. Don't miss out on our latest resources: Subscribe to President Trevor Potter's newsletter on LinkedIn or email, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events.

Issues
Voting and Elections

Protecting States’ Ability to Count Mail-In Ballots Cast Before Election Day and Received by a Later Deadline (Watson v. Republican National Committee)

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center and Protect Democracy filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm that Congress intended to allow states to continue deciding for themselves whether they would count late-received ballots.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Voting and Elections
About This Case/Action

This case is an attempt to disrupt longstanding laws that safeguard the freedom to vote.

The Constitution gives the states significant power to regulate their own elections, unless Congress steps in and enacts a law setting uniform national standards for federal elections. Many states have used that power to pass laws that allow them to count mail-in ballots that are cast on or before Election Day but received by a deadline set a few days later. These laws ensure that all validly cast mail-in ballots get counted, even if they encounter postal delivery delays.  

In 2024, the Republican National Committee sued to challenge one such law in Mississippi, arguing that the federal Election Day statutes — which set federal elections on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November — prevent states from counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day. But this is contrary to longstanding law and practice.

Congress recently took action to clarify one of the key laws that regulates federal elections. If Congress wanted to change the rules for vote-by-mail receipt deadlines, they would have done so when they passed the Electoral Count Reform Act just three years ago. By declining to do so, Congress has already indicated that the rules set by states for mail-in ballot receipt deadlines do not need to be changed.

This case has been appealed to the Supreme Court, and argument is expected in 2026. If the Supreme Court overturns states’ longstanding ability to count legally cast ballots received after Election Day, it would disproportionately harm rural voters, elderly voters, overseas and military voters, and voters with disabilities.

Access to voting by mail, when offered in addition to early voting and in-person voting, makes our democracy stronger by expanding access to the ballot for more voters.

That’s why Campaign Legal Center is urging the Supreme Court to reject this effort.

Subscribe to