Judge Fired By Trump Gets His Job Back

A federal judge has reinstated the court-appointed U.S. attorney for Western Washington after ruling that President Donald Trump’s decision to remove him was unlawful.

The ruling opens another significant legal dispute involving the Trump administration, the Justice Department, presidential authority, federal prosecutors, and the Senate confirmation process.

U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian ruled Thursday that Roger Rogoff remains the lawful U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington.

Rogoff, a former judge and veteran prosecutor, had been unanimously selected by federal judges in the district after the position remained without a Senate-confirmed presidential appointee.

Trump removed Rogoff less than an hour after he took the oath of office.

Rogoff challenged that decision in federal court, arguing that the law allowing judges to temporarily fill vacant U.S. attorney positions did not give the president authority to immediately dismiss their selection.

Bastian agreed.

The Justice Department disputes the ruling and has indicated that it plans to appeal, meaning the larger fight over presidential power and federal prosecutor appointments is likely far from over.

Federal Judge Rules Rogoff Is the Lawful U.S. Attorney

The dispute centers on a federal law governing what happens when the position of U.S. attorney remains vacant.

U.S. attorneys are the Justice Department’s top federal prosecutors in judicial districts around the country. They oversee major federal criminal prosecutions, civil litigation involving the government, and other important law-enforcement matters.

Under the normal process, the president nominates a U.S. attorney and the Senate decides whether to confirm that nominee.

The law also establishes a system for temporary vacancies.

When an interim appointment expires before the Senate confirms a permanent replacement, federal judges in the affected judicial district can appoint someone to temporarily serve as U.S. attorney.

That is what happened in Western Washington.

The district’s active and senior federal judges unanimously selected Rogoff in July after the position remained vacant without a Senate-confirmed replacement.

Trump removed him shortly afterward.

Judge Challenges Trump’s Interpretation of Presidential Power

Bastian focused heavily on the language of federal law governing judicially appointed U.S. attorneys.

The statute allows a court-appointed prosecutor to serve until the vacancy is filled.

According to Bastian’s interpretation, that means the appointment continues until a properly nominated and confirmed successor takes office.

The judge rejected the argument that the president could simply dismiss the court-appointed prosecutor while leaving the underlying vacancy unresolved.

Bastian determined that Rogoff has remained the legitimate U.S. attorney since taking his oath on July 15, 2026.

The ruling places the federal court in direct disagreement with the Trump administration over how the appointment law should operate.

Justice Department Plans to Fight the Decision

The Justice Department said it disagrees with Bastian’s ruling and intends to appeal.

That could eventually put the dispute before a federal appeals court and potentially raise broader constitutional questions involving executive authority.

The administration’s position centers on the president’s traditional authority over executive-branch officials.

U.S. attorneys work for the Justice Department, which is part of the executive branch.

That creates an important constitutional question: Can Congress authorize federal judges to place a prosecutor in an executive-branch position who cannot immediately be removed by the president?

The administration argues that presidents must retain authority over officials exercising executive power.

Rogoff’s position presents the other side of the dispute.

If presidents could immediately dismiss every court-appointed U.S. attorney, supporters of the judicial appointment system argue that the congressional law allowing judges to fill those vacancies could effectively become meaningless.

That disagreement is now at the heart of the case.

Why Federal Judges Selected Rogoff

The controversy developed after Western Washington went without a permanently confirmed U.S. attorney.

President Trump previously named Charles Neil Floyd, a former immigration judge, to serve as interim U.S. attorney in Seattle.

However, Floyd was not confirmed by the Senate as the permanent prosecutor.

After his temporary service period became an issue, the administration moved him into another position within the office while the top job remained vacant.

Federal judges eventually exercised their statutory authority and appointed Rogoff.

The president then removed Rogoff shortly after he was sworn in.

That decision ultimately triggered the lawsuit.

Trump Has Nominated a Permanent Replacement

Trump has since nominated Pete Serrano to become U.S. attorney for Western Washington.

Serrano has served as first assistant U.S. attorney in Eastern Washington.

However, a presidential nomination alone does not permanently fill the position.

The Senate must still confirm him.

Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray has opposed Serrano’s nomination, adding another political and procedural obstacle to resolving the vacancy.

Until a permanent U.S. attorney is confirmed, the legal battle over Rogoff’s status could continue.

Similar U.S. Attorney Disputes Have Reached Federal Courts

The Washington controversy is not occurring in isolation.

Federal courts have examined several disputes involving Trump administration appointments to U.S. attorney positions.

Those cases have raised questions about how long acting or interim prosecutors can remain in office and what authority the executive branch has after temporary appointment periods expire.

Former New Jersey federal prosecutor Alina Habba left her position after an appeals court concluded that she had been serving unlawfully.

Another dispute involved Lindsey Halligan, who served as acting U.S. attorney in Virginia.

A judge concluded that Halligan’s appointment was unlawful and dismissed indictments she had pursued against former FBI Director James Comey and another defendant.

The administration has also removed other prosecutors selected by federal judges, intensifying the legal disagreement over who ultimately controls these offices.

The Bigger Constitutional Question

The Seattle case could have consequences extending well beyond Washington state.

The dispute brings together three important areas of federal authority.

First is the president’s constitutional power over the executive branch.

Second is the Senate’s role in confirming presidential nominees.

Third is Congress’ decision to allow federal courts to temporarily appoint U.S. attorneys when the normal nomination and confirmation process has not produced a permanent officeholder.

Each branch of government therefore has a role somewhere in the process.

The unresolved question is where one branch’s authority ends and another’s begins.

Why the Case Matters to Americans

Although the disagreement involves an appointment procedure that may seem technical, U.S. attorneys hold considerable authority.

They decide how federal prosecution priorities are implemented in their districts and oversee cases involving matters ranging from financial crimes and public corruption to drugs, immigration, national security, and other federal offenses.

Who occupies those offices can therefore have significant consequences for Justice Department operations.

The Rogoff case also touches on a broader question that has appeared repeatedly throughout American history: how much control should presidents have over executive officials when Congress has established legal limits or alternative appointment procedures?

The courts may now have to provide additional guidance.

What Happens Next

For the moment, the federal court’s ruling recognizes Roger Rogoff as the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington.

But the dispute is unlikely to end with Bastian’s decision.

The Justice Department’s planned appeal could produce a broader ruling on the authority of presidents to remove court-appointed federal prosecutors.

That decision could affect not only the Seattle office but similar appointment battles elsewhere in the country.

Until the appeals process is resolved — or the Senate confirms a permanent U.S. attorney — the legal fight over presidential power, congressional law, and control of federal prosecutors is likely to continue.