Case: Comans v. Executive Office of the President

This case challenged the legality of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) February 11, 2025, firing of FEMA's Chief Financial Officer (CFO). On February 11, the plaintiff received a memorandum stating:

This is an official notice that, effective immediately, you are being removed from your position with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and from Federal service. This action is being taken pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution, at the direction of the President. Article II, § 1 states that the executive Power “shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,” and this termination is an exercise of that vested power. 

The memorandum did not assert that Ms. Comans was being terminated for cause or that she had failed in any way to faithfully execute the law. However, according to applicable statutes, employees such as the plaintiff can be removed only for "misconduct, neglect of duty, malfeasance, or failure to accept a directed reassignment or to accompany a position in a transfer of function." Statutory protections also include a 30-day notice before termination, along with an opportunity to hire counsel and rebut any claims of wrongdoing. The complaint alleged that none of these procedures were followed. However, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did announce that the plaintiff had been fired "for circumventing leadership to unilaterally make egregious payments for luxury NYC hotels for migrants."

On July 24, 2025, the plaintiff sued the Executive Office of the President, DHS, and the United States in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Represented by private counsel and counsel from the Democracy Defenders Fund, the plaintiff alleged that her termination was unconstitutional under Articles I and II of the Constitution and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The complaint also claimed that her termination was ultra vires and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that her suit was not covered by the Civil Service Reform Act's scheme of administrative review before the Merit System Protection Board due to President Trump's actions in terminating one member of the Board. As of the time of the filing of the complaint, the Board lacked a quorum, and therefore the plaintiff argued that Congress's purpose in enacting the CSRA had been frustrated. 

The plaintiff asked the court to issue a judgment declaring the defendants' actions unlawful, to order her reinstatement, and to award her backpay and any other relief the court deemed proper. 

The case was assigned to District Judge Michael S Nachmanoff. 

The plaintiff had also previously sued DHS and the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the District Court for the District of Columbia on March 4, 2025. That case did not contain allegations concerning the Merit System Protection Board. The Clearinghouse is covering that case here.