"But (aside from vindication for Ms. Comey), I always conceived it in terms of the specific disclosures it might bring. Because she claims she was fired because of Trump's gripes about her father, if the lawsuit survives motion to dismiss, Ms. Comey might well get more details of how Trump installed his Insurance Lawyer just in time to try to prosecute her father. (Indeed, Judge Jesse Furman, who presides over this case, suggested in an order he might grant Ms. Comey discovery before the motion to dismiss.)"
"[T]he MSPB lacks expertise to adjudicate this novel dispute: whether, as the government will likely argue, Article II of the Constitution overrides a federal employee's rights under the Civil Service Reform Act ("CSRA") and the Bill of Rights. See, e.g., Jackler v. DOJ, MSPB DA-0752-25-0330-I-1, DOJ submission, available at: https://washingtonlitigationgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Jackler-Motion.pdf. Because this case raises foundational constitutional questions with respect to the separation of powers, the MSPB is not the appropriate forum for this dispute."
Maurene Comey alleges wrongful termination tied to President Trump's complaints about her father. The lawsuit could produce discovery revealing how Trump appointed an "Insurance Lawyer" to pursue actions against her father. Judge Jesse Furman indicated potential discovery before resolving a motion to dismiss. Comey's filing argues the Merit Systems Protection Board lacks expertise to adjudicate novel constitutional questions, including whether Article II overrides rights under the Civil Service Reform Act and the Bill of Rights. The filing cites Jackler v. DOJ and Axon Enterprise v. FTC to contend that a district court may retain jurisdiction over collateral constitutional claims.
Read at emptywheel
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]