Judge Blocks Trump’s Firing of U.S. Attorney

Hand signing legal document beside gavel and laptop — Photo: Pickadook / Shutterstock

A federal judge said President Trump could not fire Seattle’s court‑appointed top prosecutor, restoring him to the job while the case moves forward.

Story Snapshot

A judge ruled the president cannot remove a court-appointed U.S. attorney and reinstated Roger Rogoff.
Rogoff was sworn in and then told he was removed less than an hour later by a presidential notice.
The court said Rogoff has lawfully held the office since his July 15 oath, citing vacancy law.
The Justice Department argues the firing was within executive power and has appealed.

What the Court Decided and Why It Matters

On October 1, Chief Judge Stanley Bastian ruled that President Trump could not unilaterally fire Roger Rogoff, who had been appointed United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington by the district’s judges after a vacancy dragged on. The judge ordered Rogoff back into the role and barred the White House and the Department of Justice from treating anyone else as the top federal prosecutor in that district while the case proceeds. The decision turns a dry vacancy rule into a sharp separation‑of‑powers test.

The ruling leaned on the statute that lets district judges appoint a United States attorney “until the vacancy is filled,” and on the court’s own order naming Rogoff to serve in that office. The judge said that allowing a summary presidential firing would upend the legal framework Congress set for long vacancies, especially when the Senate has not confirmed a nominee. The court found Rogoff has been the lawful officeholder since he took the oath on July 15, 2026.

How We Got Here: An Hour That Sparked a Lawsuit

On July 15, the Western District of Washington judges issued a general order appointing Rogoff as United States attorney, and he took the oath of office that day. Within minutes, Rogoff received a message stating the President asked that he be removed from the office, ending his brief tenure before he unpacked his desk. Reuters and other outlets reported the near‑immediate timing, which fueled a quick legal challenge and public debate over who controls interim prosecutors.

Rogoff sued to block the removal and to confirm his authority to run the office while the vacancy remains. The court granted a preliminary injunction, a temporary order that preserves the status quo as the case advances. That order directed the Executive Office of the President and the Department of Justice not to interfere with his service or recognize a replacement during the litigation. The Department of Justice has appealed, so a higher court will now weigh in.

The Administration’s Argument and the Open Questions

The Department of Justice says the President can remove any United States attorney, even one appointed by a court during a vacancy, and that Trump’s order fell within executive power. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche also argued the district’s judges skipped the usual consultation with the department before choosing Rogoff. Supporters of the executive view point to a long‑standing belief in broad presidential removal power over executive officers.

The court rejected those claims at this stage. But this is not the final word. The record available to the public does not yet include a full written opinion, so the precise legal path the court took is based on bench statements summarized by reporters. Appellate judges will review both the statute and past practice. They may accept the trial court’s reading, narrow it, or reverse it. Until then, the order stands, and Rogoff leads the office again.

Why Both Sides See High Stakes

For conservatives who want accountable prosecutors and a clear chain of command, this fight raises a basic question: who runs federal law enforcement when Washington stalls. For liberals who fear political meddling in cases, the ruling looks like a guardrail against pressure from above. For many beyond party lines, the case reflects a deeper worry that leaders bend rules to protect power, while urgent problems wait in line. A stable, rules‑based process should serve the public, not insiders.

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

The broader system has struggled with vacancies and turf battles for years. Congress wrote a backstop so courts can keep key offices running when the normal Senate‑confirmed route is blocked. The administration’s appeal keeps the issue alive and could shape how future vacancies are handled nationwide. However the courts decide, the public needs a simple outcome: clear authority, steady leadership, and prosecutors focused on crime, not power games.