Judge Bastian blocks Trump from firing court-appointed U.S. attorney Rogoff

Key points

• Judge Stanley Bastian, an Obama appointee, ordered the Justice Department to restore Roger Rogoff to his post as U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington.
• Rogoff was appointed by the 17 judges of the Western District of Washington in July 2026 after President Trump’s interim appointee, Charles Neil Floyd, served his 120-day term without Senate confirmation.
• President Trump fired Rogoff less than an hour after his appointment, leading to a lawsuit that resulted in Bastian’s preliminary injunction.
• Bastian ruled that federal law allows courts to appoint U.S. attorneys to fill vacancies until a Senate-confirmed nominee takes office, and that the president cannot unilaterally remove these court-appointed officials.
• The Justice Department stated it disagrees with the ruling and intends to seek an immediate stay and appeal, citing a 1979 Justice Department opinion and a 2000 federal appeals court ruling that support presidential removal power.
• White House spokesperson Lauren Bis called the ruling an attempt to undermine the president’s constitutional authority, while conservative legal experts criticized the decision as judicial overreach.

Background

This dispute is part of a broader pattern of legal battles over U.S. attorney appointments during the Trump administration. In New Jersey, the administration attempted to keep Alina Habba in the role beyond her interim term, but she resigned after an appeals court ruled her appointment unlawful. In Virginia, Lindsey Halligan left her position after a judge concluded her appointment was illegal, and the administration fired the court-appointed replacement. In New York, the administration also fired a court-appointed U.S. attorney. The current case in Washington is the first to directly test whether a president can fire a U.S. attorney appointed by a federal court under the statutory process for filling vacancies.

How outlets are covering it

Fox News framed the ruling as an example of 'activist' judicial overreach, with White House spokesperson Lauren Bis and conservative legal experts like Mike Davis and Jeff Clark arguing that the president has constitutional authority to fire all executive branch officials, including U.S. attorneys. They emphasized a 1979 Justice Department opinion and a 2000 federal appeals court ruling that support presidential removal power. CNN highlighted the ruling as a first-of-its-kind decision that tests the scope of presidential removal power, noting that Bastian’s ruling limits the president’s power to Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys, not those appointed by courts. NBC News focused on the procedural details, noting that Bastian heard the case because the judges in the Western District of Washington were recused, and emphasized the broader pattern of the administration’s efforts to control U.S. attorney posts through novel personnel maneuvers. All three outlets agreed on the core facts of the ruling but differed in their framing of the constitutional implications and the legitimacy of the administration’s actions.

Why it matters

The ruling sets a precedent for the limits of presidential power over U.S. attorneys, particularly those appointed by courts to fill vacancies. If the Justice Department’s appeal succeeds, it could affirm the president’s broad removal power over all executive branch officials. If the ruling stands, it could restrict the administration’s ability to install loyalists in key prosecutorial roles without Senate confirmation. The case also highlights the tension between the executive and judicial branches over the control of federal prosecutors, with potential implications for future appointments and the independence of the Justice Department.

What to watch

The Justice Department has stated it will seek an immediate stay and appeal Bastian’s ruling. The case may go to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, where the constitutional question of presidential removal power over court-appointed U.S. attorneys will be tested. The outcome could influence how the administration handles other U.S. attorney appointments and vacancies in the future.