Here’s what happened.
President Donald Trump is facing a new separation-of-powers battle after a federal judge appointed during the Obama administration temporarily restored a U.S. attorney whom Trump had sought to remove.
The decision creates another major legal dispute involving presidential authority, the Justice Department and the power of federal courts.
U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian issued a preliminary injunction on October 1 restoring Roger Rogoff as U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington. Rogoff had been selected for the position by federal judges before Trump moved to remove him less than an hour after he took office.
The Trump administration immediately made clear that it intends to fight the decision.
“We disagree with the decision and intend to seek an immediate stay and will appeal,” the Justice Department said after the ruling.
The case could now move to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and potentially raise broader questions about the constitutional powers of the president, Congress and the federal judiciary.
White House Defends Trump’s Presidential Authority
The White House strongly criticized the ruling and argued that U.S. attorneys are executive branch officials who ultimately answer to the president.
White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said the administration believes U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and argued that Trump’s constitutional authority is being restricted by the ruling.
At the center of the case is a question that could have consequences well beyond Washington state:
Can a president remove a U.S. attorney who was temporarily appointed by federal judges when no Senate-confirmed prosecutor is in place?
The answer is now being disputed in federal court.
Why Federal Judges Appointed Roger Rogoff
U.S. attorneys normally enter office after being nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Federal law, however, provides temporary procedures when a U.S. attorney position becomes vacant.
The attorney general can initially make an interim appointment. If that appointment expires before a permanent replacement is confirmed, federal district judges may appoint someone to serve until the vacancy is filled.
That is how Rogoff became U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington.
He was selected by the district’s federal judges in July 2026. President Trump moved to dismiss him less than an hour after he was sworn into office.
Rogoff then challenged the administration’s action in court.
Obama-Appointed Judge Reinstates Rogoff
Bastian, who was first nominated to the federal bench by President Barack Obama in 2013, sided with Rogoff at this stage of the case.
His preliminary injunction recognizes Rogoff as the U.S. attorney and prevents the Trump administration from blocking him from performing the duties of the office while litigation continues.
A preliminary injunction is not necessarily the final decision in a case.
Instead, it generally preserves a particular situation while courts consider the larger legal arguments.
The Justice Department has already announced plans to seek an immediate stay and appeal.
That means a higher court could soon decide whether Rogoff remains in office while the constitutional dispute proceeds.
Trump Has Already Nominated A Permanent Replacement
Trump has nominated Pete Serrano to become U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington.
If Serrano is confirmed by the Senate and takes office, that would provide the traditional presidentially appointed replacement for the court-appointed prosecutor.
The current dispute focuses on what authority the president has before that process is completed.
That distinction could become crucial as the litigation continues.
Decades-Old Justice Department Opinion Supports Broad Removal Power
The Trump administration’s argument is not without historical legal support.
In 1979, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel examined whether a president could remove a U.S. attorney who had been appointed by a federal court.
The office concluded that the president possessed that removal authority.
That opinion was based partly on the view that U.S. attorneys perform executive branch functions and therefore must remain subject to presidential supervision.
However, an Office of Legal Counsel opinion represents the Justice Department’s legal interpretation. It is not the same as a binding Supreme Court ruling.
That difference could become significant as federal judges examine the issue.
Ninth Circuit Precedent Could Play Major Role
A previous Ninth Circuit case is likely to receive considerable attention during the appeal.
In United States v. Gantt, the Ninth Circuit considered the constitutionality of allowing federal judges to appoint temporary U.S. attorneys.
The appeals court concluded that U.S. attorneys are “inferior officers” under the Constitution and upheld Congress’ authority to allow federal courts to make temporary appointments.
The court also emphasized that the president retained the power to replace a court-appointed U.S. attorney with someone nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
The Rogoff controversy presents a narrower and potentially significant question.
Trump did not simply replace Rogoff with a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney. Instead, the administration sought to remove the court-appointed prosecutor before a permanent presidential nominee had been confirmed.
That distinction is at the heart of the current litigation.
Conservatives Criticize Judge’s Decision
Several conservative lawyers and legal commentators publicly criticized Bastian’s ruling.
Article III Project founder Mike Davis argued that the decision interferes with the president’s Article II authority over executive branch officials.
Attorney Jeff Clark also criticized the ruling and predicted that the dispute could eventually be decided by the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court.
Attorney Brian Nieves similarly argued that federal judges should not be able to control who serves as a Justice Department official.
Their arguments reflect the broader constitutional position that prosecutors exercise executive power and should therefore remain under presidential control.
Bastian’s ruling reflects a competing interpretation: that Congress created a lawful system allowing judges to temporarily appoint U.S. attorneys and that a president’s ability to remove those officials may be constrained while that statutory process remains in effect.
That disagreement is now headed toward higher courts.
Supreme Court Removal-Power Case Could Enter Debate
Supporters of Trump’s position may also point to the Supreme Court’s landmark 1926 decision in Myers v. United States.
That case arose after President Woodrow Wilson removed a postmaster without receiving Senate approval.
The Supreme Court concluded that Congress could not require Senate consent before a president removed certain executive officials.
The ruling became one of the country’s most important precedents involving presidential removal authority.
However, the Rogoff case has a different legal structure.
Congress specifically created a system allowing federal courts to appoint temporary U.S. attorneys under certain circumstances.
The courts may therefore have to determine how that congressional authority interacts with the president’s constitutional responsibility to oversee the executive branch.
Separation Of Powers Takes Center Stage
The Constitution divides federal authority among three branches of government.
Congress writes federal laws.
The executive branch, led by the president, enforces them.
Federal courts interpret those laws and resolve legal disputes.
The Rogoff case touches all three branches.
Congress created the law permitting temporary judicial appointments.
Federal judges used that authority to appoint Rogoff.
Trump, as head of the executive branch, then attempted to remove him.
That unusual combination makes the case particularly important for the continuing debate over separation of powers.
Other Trump U.S. Attorney Disputes Have Reached Federal Courts
The Washington dispute is also part of a larger series of legal battles involving Trump administration U.S. attorney appointments.
Similar controversies have emerged in states including New Jersey, Virginia and New York.
One prominent dispute involved Alina Habba in New Jersey after her interim appointment expired.
Federal courts rejected the administration’s effort to keep Habba exercising the authority of the U.S. attorney under the arrangement challenged in that case.
Rogoff’s case raises a different issue because federal judges formally appointed him under the statute governing U.S. attorney vacancies.
His lawsuit therefore directly tests what happens when presidential removal authority collides with Congress’ system for judicial appointments.
Could The Case Reach The Supreme Court?
The immediate next stop could be the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Justice Department says it plans to ask for an immediate stay of Bastian’s injunction while pursuing an appeal.
If the Ninth Circuit ultimately issues a significant ruling on presidential removal authority, either side could later ask the Supreme Court to review the case.
Whether the Supreme Court would agree to hear such an appeal would depend on how the litigation develops.
For now, Rogoff has been restored to his position under the preliminary injunction.
Trump’s permanent nominee could also change the practical situation if confirmed by the Senate.
Why The Trump-Rogoff Fight Matters
The dispute may appear to involve only one federal prosecutor, but the underlying constitutional question is much larger.
Presidents have long asserted substantial authority over officials who enforce federal law.
Congress, meanwhile, has maintained a statutory system allowing judges to temporarily fill vacant U.S. attorney positions when the normal appointment process stalls.
The courts must now determine how those two principles fit together.
The eventual ruling could clarify how much power presidents have over court-appointed federal prosecutors and where the constitutional boundary lies between executive authority and judicial involvement.
For Trump, the case represents another significant test of presidential power.
For the judiciary, it is a test of authority Congress has granted federal courts for generations.
And for the Justice Department, the outcome could help determine who ultimately controls temporary federal prosecutors when the White House and federal courts disagree.
With an appeal already promised, the separation-of-powers fight surrounding Roger Rogoff appears far from over.
