Judge reinstates Seattle U.S. attorney, ruling presidential firing of court-appointed prosecutors illegal

Key points

• Judge Stanley Bastian ruled that the president lacks the authority to unilaterally remove a U.S. attorney appointed by a district court, declaring Rogoff the rightful holder of the office since his July 15 oath.
• The ruling strips authority from Charles Neil Floyd, whom the administration had installed as an interim leader, and prohibits the Justice Department from interfering with Rogoff's duties or treating anyone else as the U.S. attorney.
• The Justice Department has stated it will appeal the decision and seek to halt the ruling, arguing that the president retains removal power even over court-appointed officials.
• This case is part of a broader pattern of legal disputes where the administration has attempted to bypass Senate confirmation to place preferred candidates in U.S. attorney positions across multiple states, including Nevada and New Jersey.

Background

This ruling follows a series of legal challenges regarding the administration's handling of U.S. attorney vacancies. In August 2026, a divided Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Trump-picked acting U.S. attorney in New York was serving unlawfully. The current dispute centers on the 120-day limit for interim appointments; once that period expired, federal law grants district courts the power to appoint a U.S. attorney until the Senate confirms a replacement. Rogoff was appointed by the court in July but was fired by the president less than an hour after taking the oath.

How outlets are covering it

The Washington Post and CBS News emphasize the ruling as a definitive check on executive power, highlighting Judge Bastian's statement that allowing such firings would eliminate the incentive for the president to nominate candidates capable of Senate confirmation. CNN frames the decision as a 'first-of-its-kind' ruling that tests the scope of presidential removal power under the Constitution, noting that Rogoff is the first court-appointed U.S. attorney to challenge his firing in court. Politico focuses on the broader implications for the administration's strategy to install loyalists, describing the ruling as a major loss for the White House's approach to top prosecutorial jobs. All sources agree that the Justice Department intends to appeal, with the Department arguing that the president retains removal authority despite the court's appointment.

Why it matters

The decision establishes a precedent that the executive branch cannot circumvent the Senate's advice-and-consent role by firing court-appointed U.S. attorneys. It reinforces the constitutional balance between the executive and legislative branches in the appointment of federal prosecutors and may influence ongoing legal battles in other districts where the administration has attempted similar maneuvers.

What to watch

The Justice Department plans to appeal the ruling and seek to halt its immediate effects. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to take up related cases, such as the one concerning the U.S. attorney in Nevada. Rogoff is expected to resume his duties as the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington, while the administration continues to seek Senate confirmation for its preferred candidates.