By https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/headshot-600-jacob-rosen.jpg 雅各布·罗森 司法部记者
更新时间：2026年10月26日 美国东部时间下午12:55 | CBS新闻
华盛顿讯——一名联邦法官周一裁定，司法部非法解雇了前FBI局长詹姆斯·科米之女毛里内·科米，后者曾任纽约南区联邦检察官。
美国地区法官杰西·弗曼在一份长达55页的裁决中指出，科米的罢免违反了宪法权力分立原则和联邦法律。法官裁定，将科米恢复原联邦检察官职位，并要求特朗普政府向她支付自2025年7月解雇之日起至2025年12月20日（她接受新工作之日）的拖欠工资。
科米的诉讼是多名被无故解雇的前政府雇员提起的几起诉讼之一，这些案件考验了总统罢免联邦官员的权力边界。
特朗普政府辩称，宪法第二条赋予总统不受限制的罢免权，并表示国会不得限制联邦检察官的罢免。
但弗曼在裁决中指出，解雇科米的行为违反了1978年颁布的《公务员制度改革法》，这一具有里程碑意义的法律为联邦雇员提供了保护。他写道，特朗普政府试图“推翻”长期确立的判例法，该判例法允许国会规范所谓“下级官员”的罢免。
“实际上，若接受被告的论点，将破坏美国宪法体系所确立的权力平衡，”弗曼写道。
科米的法律团队将该裁决誉为她本人及所有公务员的“来之不易的胜利”。
律师艾伦·布莱恩、妮可·格伦、迪帕·瓦纳马利和玛格丽特·多诺万在一份声明中表示：“正如法院正确裁定的那样，若接受政府关于行政权力不受限制的论点，‘将破坏美国宪法体系所确立的权力平衡’。这一裁决重申了我们基本的权力制衡体系：总统凌驾于法律之上是不被允许的。”
司法部发言人称，该部门“不同意这一裁决，并将在适当的时候提起上诉”。
科米自2015年起担任曼哈顿联邦检察官，处理过多个备受关注的刑事案件，涉案人员包括肖恩·“吹牛老爹”·科姆斯、杰弗里·爱泼斯坦、吉莱恩·麦克斯韦以及前民主党参议员罗伯特·梅嫩德斯。
科米在被解雇时写给前同事的信中表示，她是通过司法部位于华盛顿总部的一份备忘录“即刻遭到解雇”，且未被告知解雇原因。
她收到的解雇通知写道：“根据美国宪法第二条及美国法律，你在司法部的任职关系现予终止，你即刻被免去联邦公职。”
起初尚不清楚是谁做出了解雇科米的决定，但在2026年5月，特朗普政府表示时任司法部长帕姆·邦迪“指示”解雇她，而她的继任者托德·布兰奇“批准”了解雇决定。
科米去年就自己被解雇一事起诉司法部，指控她可能因特朗普总统不喜欢她的父亲而被解雇，她的父亲在特朗普第二个总统任期内遭到两次起诉。其中一起刑事案件已被驳回，詹姆斯·科米否认在另一起案件中存在不当行为。
科米的律师在诉状中写道：“科米女士的解雇——无正当理由、无事先通知、无任何申诉机会——既违法又违宪。”
特朗普政府试图驳回诉讼，理由是科米应先向功绩系统保护委员会提起申诉，该机构负责审理联邦雇员针对对其采取的不利行动提出的上诉，但弗曼驳回了政府的动议，允许案件继续审理。
弗曼认定，由于解雇科米的依据是宪法第二条，而非规范公务员制度的联邦法律，因此联邦法院对该案件拥有管辖权。
在法院文件中，司法部承认，科米在2019年至2024年的工作表现评估中均获得“杰出”评级，但表示解雇她是依据国会授予司法部长罢免联邦助理检察官的法律权限。
为解雇科米进行辩护时，特朗普政府部分依据最高法院6月的一项裁决，该裁决允许总统无正当理由罢免某些独立机构的成员。在该案中，最高法院推翻了一项已有90多年历史的裁决，该裁决允许国会限制总统任意罢免多成员机构官员的权力。
但弗曼表示，司法部的论点相当于“一种范围广泛且前所未有的行政权力理论”。
Maurene Comey, James Comey’s daughter, was unlawfully fired, judge rules
By https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/headshot-600-jacob-rosen.jpg Jacob Rosen Justice Department Reporter
Updated on: October 26, 2026 / 12:55 PM EDT / CBS News
Washington — A federal judge on Monday found that the Justice Department unlawfully fired Maurene Comey, the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, from her post as a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York.
U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman said in a 55-page decision that Comey’s removal violated the constitutional separation of powers and federal law. The judge retroactively reinstated Comey to her role as a federal prosecutor and ordered the Trump administration to provide her back pay from the date of her firing in July 2025 through Dec. 20, when she accepted a different job.
Comey’s lawsuit was one of several filed by former government employees who were fired without cause that tested the limits of the president’s power to fire federal officials.
The Trump administration had argued that Article II of the Constitution gives the president unrestricted removal power, and said Congress could not limit the removal of federal prosecutors.
But in his decision, Furman ruled that Comey’s firing violated the Civil Service Reform Act, a landmark law enacted in 1978 that provides protections for federal workers. The Trump administration, he wrote, is attempting to “upend” long-settled case law allowing Congress to regulate the removal of so-called inferior officers.
“Indeed, to accept Defendants’ argument would be to unsettle the very equilibrium established by this Nation’s constitutional system,” Furman wrote.
Comey’s legal team cheered the decision as a “hard-earned victory” for her and all civil servants.
“As the Court correctly held, to accept the government’s argument about unlimited executive power ‘would be to unsettle the very equilibrium established by this Nation’s constitutional system.’ This decision reaffirms our bedrock system of checks and balances: the President is not above the law,” lawyers Ellen Blain, Nicole Gueron, Deepa Vanamali and Margaret Donovan said in a statement.
A Justice Department spokesperson said it “disagrees with this decision and will appeal in due course.”
Comey had served as a federal prosecutor in Manhattan since 2015, handling high-profile criminal cases against figures including Sean “Diddy” Combs, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and former Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez.
In a letter to her former colleagues at the time of her dismissal, Comey said she was “summarily fired via memo” by the Justice Department’s headquarters in Washington, and was not given a reason for her termination.
The letter she received stated, “Pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States, your employment with the Department of Justice is hereby terminated, and you are removed from federal service effective immediately.”
It was initially unclear who made the decision to oust Comey, but in May, the Trump administration said then-Attorney General Pam Bondi “directed” her removal, and her successor, Todd Blanche, “ratified” her termination.
Comey sued the Justice Department over her firing last year, alleging she had probably been fired because President Trump dislikes her father, who has been indicted twice during the second Trump administration. One of the criminal cases was tossed out, and James Comey has denied wrongdoing in the second.
“Ms. Comey’s termination — without cause, without advance notice, and without any opportunity to contest it — was unlawful and unconstitutional,” Comey’s attorneys wrote in their complaint.
The Trump administration attempted to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that Comey was required to bring her claims before the Merit Systems Protection Board, the agency tasked with adjudicating appeals from federal employees regarding adverse actions taken against them, but Furman denied the government’s motion and allowed the case to continue.
Furman found that because Comey’s firing rested on Article II of the Constitution — not a federal law governing the civil service — the federal court had jurisdiction to hear the case.
In court filings, the Justice Department admitted that Comey had received a rating of “outstanding” on her performance reviews from 2019 through 2024, but said that her firing had been carried out under legal authority Congress granted to the attorney general to fire assistant U.S. attorneys.
In defending Comey’s firing, the Trump administration relied, in part, on the Supreme Court’s June decision allowing the president to fire members of certain independent agencies without cause. In that case, the high court overturned a more than 90-year-old decision that allowed Congress to restrict the president’s ability to fire officials from multimember agencies at will.
But Furman said the Justice Department’s argument amounted to a “sweeping and unprecedented theory of executive authority.”
发表回复