Judge rules Trump lacked authority to fire Roger Rogoff, reinstates him

Roger Rogoff is temporarily back as western Washington’s U.S. attorney, two and a half months after President Donald Trump fired him just one hour into the job.

U.S. District Court Judge Stanley Bastian granted a preliminary injunction reinstating Rogoff Thursday.

The week after his firing, Rogoff filed a lawsuit against Trump and Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, arguing his firing was unconstitutional after federal judges appointed him to lead the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Western Washington.

“I was disappointed, but unsurprised that President Trump removed me from that office an hour after I started,” Rogoff told KIRO Newsradio after his firing.

The lawsuit claimed the president lacked the authority to remove Rogoff because he was appointed by judges under a federal law governing vacancies in U.S. attorney positions.

On Thursday, Judge Bastian agreed.

“Can the President fire a court-appointed U.S. Attorney? No,” Bastian states in his ruling. “The President cannot unilaterally fire a U.S. Attorney appointed by the Court.”

Under the injunction, the Executive Office of the President, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and the Justice Department are barred from obstructing Rogoff’s work “until the vacancy of the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington is filled via Senate confirmation.”

The order also bars them from taking the following action: “Deny or obstruct Plaintiff Roger Rogoff from accessing any of the benefits or resources of his position as U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington.”

The Justice Department said in a written statement to the Associated Press that it disagreed with the decision and would appeal.

Rogoff is the latest in a series of judicially appointed U.S. attorneys to be ousted by the Trump administration, and he is believed to be the first to sue over the removal, setting up a direct legal battle over the issue.

Former Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna, who chaired the committee that recommended candidates for the position, said Rogoff’s qualifications were thoroughly vetted before his name was submitted to the court.

“We advanced his name and the name of other candidates back to the courts that we think these people were qualified,” McKenna told “Seattle’s Morning News.”

McKenna also explained the legal dispute could have significant consequences for the U.S. Attorney’s Office and may not have an easy resolution.

At the center of the case is an unusual appointment process

Normally, U.S. attorneys are nominated by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. If a vacancy occurs, the U.S. attorney general may appoint an interim U.S. attorney to serve for up to 120 days. If that temporary appointment expires without Senate confirmation of a permanent nominee, federal district judges in that district can appoint a U.S. attorney to serve until the Senate confirms a presidential nominee.

That is the process that led to Rogoff’s appointment in western Washington.

“If a U.S. Attorney has not been confirmed by the Senate, then the federal judges in that district, here we’re talking about the Western District of Washington, are empowered to appoint someone,” McKenna explained. “They’ve done that now a couple of times in the current Trump administration, and both times, including this recent case, the president has fired the U.S. attorney they’ve appointed, and you know that’s within his power to do.”

The Trump administration argued the president has the authority to remove any U.S. attorney, for whatever reason. In a recent post on X, U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche declared, “District court judges can appoint a temporary U.S. Attorney, and POTUS can fire them.”

Rogoff’s lawsuit contends that power does not extend to a court-appointed U.S. attorney, setting up what legal observers say could become a significant separation-of-powers dispute involving the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government.

“So, we have a standoff here, sort of three corners,” McKenna said. “You got the courts, you’ve got the president, the executive branch, and you’ve got the legislative branch. So, all three branches of government are mixed up in this.”

The outcome of Rogoff’s lawsuit could determine not only who leads the U.S. Attorney’s Office in western Washington but also clarify the limits of presidential authority over court-appointed federal prosecutors. It will also send a message to Congress about the weight of its decision-making.

“Unfortunately, in the current Trump administration, the Senate is refusing to even consider his nominees in many cases, and so he’s appointing people to serve in the first assistant position instead,” McKenna explained. “If he appoints them to serve as sort of an interim U.S. attorney, and then when they don’t get confirmed under a federal statute, they can no longer keep the job. So then, what he’s been doing is moving them into the first assistant U.S. attorney position, which is the number two job in the office, and he just leaves the U.S. attorney position vacant.”

Another potential issue arising out of the legal debate is the impact on future criminal cases in federal court.

“Some criminal defense attorneys are saying prosecutions aren’t valid if you don’t have a sitting U.S. attorney,” McKenna warned. “I know that across the country, district courts are concerned about it. U.S. attorneys’ offices are concerned about it, but I don’t know that that’s a subtle question by any means.

“I think that’ll have to play out,” he continued. “In the meantime, I hope for the sake of our community and for the sake of the professional men and women at the U.S. Attorney’s Office that a compromise can be reached at least between the court and the administration on a candidate they can both agree on.”

Contributing, Associated Press, Luke Duecy and Frank Lenzi, KIRO Newsradio