2026年4月28日 美国东部时间上午11:15 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
华盛顿讯 一名联邦法官周二裁定，前联邦检察官莫琳·科米起诉特朗普总统解雇她的案件可以在联邦法院继续推进。
美国地区法官杰西·弗曼驳回了特朗普政府要求驳回该诉讼的请求，政府的理由是科米——前联邦调查局局长詹姆斯·科米的女儿——本应先向功绩制保护委员会提出其诉求。该机构负责裁决联邦雇员针对针对他们采取的不利行动提出的上诉。
但弗曼法官认为，由于科米被解雇所依据的是宪法第二条，而非管理公务员制度的联邦法律，因此联邦法院拥有审理此案的管辖权。
“被告仅依赖宪法——而非《公务员改革法案》的免职条款——这使得科米的案件不在国会 intended 由功绩制保护委员会审理的案件范围之内，”法官在其长达27页的判决书中写道。
科米曾在纽约南区担任美国助理检察官近十年，参与过多起备受瞩目的案件，包括涉及被定罪的性犯罪者杰弗里·爱泼斯坦及其长期同伙吉斯莱恩·麦克斯韦、肖恩·“迪迪”·康姆斯以及新泽西州民主党参议员鲍勃·梅嫩德斯的案件。
但去年7月，她收到了司法部发来的一份备忘录，内容是“联邦服务解雇通知”。
“根据美国宪法第二条和美国法律，你在司法部的雇佣关系特此终止，你将立即被解除联邦公职，”备忘录写道。
根据法庭文件，科米曾就解雇理由询问过代理美国检察官杰伊·克莱顿，他告诉她：“我只能说，此事来自华盛顿。我不能透露更多细节。”
科米指控她被解雇很可能是因为特朗普先生不喜欢她的父亲。这位总统经常攻击这位前联邦调查局局长，因为后者在调查其2016年竞选团队与俄罗斯之间所谓关联事件中发挥的作用。詹姆斯·科米去年在弗吉尼亚州被联邦大陪审团起诉，但由于负责起诉的检察官林赛·哈利根任命程序不当，指控被撤销。
科米于去年8月首次向功绩制保护委员会就解雇提出上诉，随后在联邦法院提起诉讼，指控她被免职违反了宪法和联邦法律。她请求法院下令恢复其职位，并要求获得截至2025年12月20日的欠薪。
但特朗普政府要求法院驳回此案，理由是地区法院没有审理此案的管辖权。
在批准科米的诉讼可以在联邦法院推进时，弗曼法官认为，她的案件不属于《公务员改革法案》规定的管辖范围，因为她是依据宪法第二条被解雇的。
“法院认定，科米的诉求不属于国会打算由该机制审查的类型，因为这会剥夺她获得有意义的司法审查的权利，她的诉求与《公务员改革法案》的审查规定完全无关，而且她的诉求——涉及根本性宪法问题——超出了功绩制保护委员会的传统专业权限范围，”他写道。
Judge allows Maurene Comey’s lawsuit challenging her firing to move forward in federal court
April 28, 2026 11:15 AM EDT / CBS News
Washington — A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey’s case challenging her firing by President Trump can move forward in federal court.
U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that Comey, the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, had to bring her claims before the Merit Systems Protection Board. That agency is tasked with adjudicating appeals from federal employees regarding adverse actions taken against them.
Instead, 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 has jurisdiction to hear the case.
“Defendants’ sole reliance on the Constitution — rather than the removal provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act — places Comey’s case outside the universe of cases that Congress intended the MSPB to resolve,” the judge wrote in his 27-page decision.
Comey served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York for nearly a decade and worked on high-profile cases, including those involving convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Sean “Diddy” Combs and Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey.
But last July, she received a memorandum from the Justice Department stating “notice of removal from federal service.”
“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,” the memo stated.
Comey asked interim U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton about the basis for her firing, and he told her, “All I can say is it came from Washington. I can’t tell you anything else,” according to court papers.
Comey alleges that she was likely fired because of Mr. Trump’s dislike of her father. The president frequently attacks the former FBI director because of his role in investigating alleged ties between the president’s 2016 campaign and Russia. James Comey was indicted by a federal grand jury in Virginia last year, but the charges were dismissed on the grounds that Lindsey Halligan, the prosecutor who pursued the indictment, was improperly appointed to the role.
Comey first filed an appeal of her firing with the Merit Systems Protection Board last August and then filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that her removal violated the Constitution and federal law. She is seeking a court order reinstating her to her role and back pay through Dec. 20, 2025.
The Trump administration, though, asked the court to dismiss her case on the grounds that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
In allowing Comey’s lawsuit to move forward in federal court, Furman found that her case does not fall within the purview of the scheme laid out in the Civil Service Reform Act because she was fired pursuant to Article II of the Constitution.
“The Court finds that Comey’s claims are not of the type Congress intended to be reviewed within that scheme because it would deprive her of meaningful judicial review, her claims are wholly collateral to the CSRA’s review provisions, and her claims — which raise fundamental constitutional questions — fall outside of the MSPB’s traditional expertise,” he wrote.
节点运行失败
发表回复