A federal judge said President Trump cannot fire a court-appointed U.S. attorney in Seattle, raising a sharp separation-of-powers fight that will now move to appeal.
Story Highlights
- A judge ruled the President cannot remove a court-appointed U.S. attorney in Seattle.
- The court said Roger Rogoff has lawfully held the office since his July 15 oath.
- Rogoff was sworn in and then told he was fired within an hour, triggering a lawsuit.
- The Justice Department argues removal power remains with the President.
Judge’s Ruling Limits Presidential Removal Power
Chief Judge Stanley Bastian ruled on October 1, 2026, that the President cannot unilaterally remove a United States attorney whom district judges appointed under the vacancy statute. He ordered that Roger Rogoff is the United States attorney for the Western District of Washington and has been since the day he took the oath in July. The court barred the White House and the Justice Department from treating anyone else as the officeholder while the case proceeds.
Reporters at the hearing quoted the judge saying the law lets federal judges appoint a prosecutor when a vacancy lingers, and that allowing the President to fire that court-appointed prosecutor would upend the framework Congress set in statute. The court treated the dispute as a separation-of-powers question grounded in the vacancy law’s text and structure. This is a preliminary ruling, and further review by higher courts remains possible as appeals advance.
How The Fight Started In Seattle
Judges of the Western District of Washington issued a general order on July 15 appointing Roger Scott Rogoff to serve as United States attorney for the district. The order expressly authorized him to serve in that office under the court’s appointment power during the vacancy. Rogoff took the oath the same day. Within minutes, he received a notice saying he was removed, which set off the legal challenge that led to Thursday’s courtroom decision.
Reuters and other outlets reported that Rogoff’s firing came less than an hour after his swearing-in, an extraordinary sequence that pushed the question into court. The judge’s ruling restored Rogoff to the post on a preliminary basis while the lawsuit continues. The Justice Department filed an appeal, which keeps the legal issue active and means a final answer will come later in the appellate process.
The Administration’s Case And The Statute At Issue
The Justice Department has said the President’s removal of Rogoff fell within the scope of executive power. The administration argues that even if judges can temporarily appoint a United States attorney under the vacancy statute, the President still holds the removal power over executive branch officers. That position matches long-running executive branch views and was restated in public comments by senior officials during this dispute.
Media summaries of the judge’s bench ruling describe the court’s focus on Congress’s framework for filling vacancies in United States attorney offices. According to those reports, the court read the statute as giving judges a stopgap appointment power when a vacancy extends, and rejected the idea that the President can override that court appointment by firing the appointee at will. The court said doing so would defeat Congress’s design during the vacancy period.
Why This Matters For Checks And Balances
This case tests how far judicial appointment power reaches when the Senate has not confirmed a nominee and a vacancy continues. It also tests how far presidential removal power extends over a prosecutor installed by judges under the vacancy law. Conservatives value clear lines of authority and accountability. Supporters of strong executive control will see risk in a rule that blocks removal. Supporters of strict statutory boundaries will cite Congress’s words and the need to keep every branch in its lane.
NEW: A federal judge is granting a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit brought by Roger Rogoff, the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington, against the Trump administration. Rogoff was fired by Trump immediately after he was appointed by district judges.
— erica orden (@eorden) October 1, 2026
For readers, two truths can stand together. First, the President must run the executive branch and be accountable for prosecutors’ work. Second, Congress set a process for keeping offices running when confirmations stall. The district court favored the statute’s guardrails in this narrow setting, and the administration has appealed to defend presidential control. The next rulings from the appeals court will decide which principle governs the rest of this term and beyond.
Sources:
washingtontimes.com, wawd.uscourts.gov, cnn.com
