Federal Judge Blocks Trump From Firing Court-Appointed U.S. Attorney

U.S. District Court Judge Stanley Bastian, appointed by former President Barack Obama, issued a preliminary injunction on Friday, blocking the Trump administration from firing Roger Rogoff, the court-appointed U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington. The order also bars the administration from treating Rogoff as having been lawfully removed and mandates his reinstatement.

The ruling sets the stage for a significant legal confrontation over whether a president can dismiss U.S. attorneys who were appointed by federal judges. This authority has been a subject of debate, with a 1979 Justice Department opinion and a 2000 federal appeals court ruling both concluding that the president does possess such power.

The Department of Justice has stated its disagreement with the decision and intends to seek an immediate stay and appeal the ruling.

Critics of the decision, including legal experts and conservative attorneys, have voiced strong opposition on social media, arguing that the ruling infringes upon the president's constitutional authority over the executive branch. Mike Davis, president of Article III, criticized the decision as "lawless and dangerous" and a violation of the separation of powers. He pointed out that the judge misspelled his own name in the order. "Democrat judges handpicked their own U.S. attorney. The President, through his attorney general, fired him. Under Article II of the Constitution, the President clearly has the executive power to fire Justice Department officials," Davis stated.

Jeff Clark, litigation vice president for the Oversight Project, asserted that the president's power to remove U.S. attorneys must be unfettered, consistent with Article II of the Constitution. He predicted that Judge Bastian's decision would eventually be reversed. Brian Nieves, a partner at Holtzman Vogel, described the situation as "Judicial overreach, plain and simple. The judiciary does not get to run the Executive Branch. Period."

Past legal precedent, such as the Supreme Court's 1926 ruling in Myers v. United States, has generally affirmed the president's constitutional authority to remove executive branch officers. More recently, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel concluded in a 1979 opinion that the president's statutory authority to remove "each United States attorney" extends to those appointed by federal judges.

This case is one of several recent legal disputes concerning President Trump's appointments of U.S. attorneys, with similar conflicts having occurred in New Jersey, Virginia, and New York. In New Jersey, a dispute over Alina Habba's interim term as U.S. attorney ultimately saw federal courts reject the administration's attempt to extend her authority, though the originally appointed judge did not fully take over the office.

Rogoff's case, however, represents a more direct challenge, testing the limits of presidential power to remove a U.S. attorney appointed through the statutory process for filling vacancies.