Story
October 2, 2026
Judge’s Seattle Ruling Puts Trump’s Power to Fire U.S. Attorneys on Trial
A federal judge restored Roger Rogoff as Seattle’s U.S. attorney, rejecting Trump’s unilateral firing power. The Justice Department says it will appeal, while conservatives warn the ruling may leave the office vulnerable to operational pressure.
President Trump’s attempt to remove Seattle U.S. Attorney Roger Rogoff has become a test of whether the White House—or the courts—control a prosecutor appointed under a federal vacancy statute.
U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian ordered Rogoff reinstated until the Senate confirms a replacement, ruling that the president could not dismiss an attorney appointed by the district court. Bastian said the central question was whether the president could fire a court-appointed U.S. attorney and answered plainly: “no.”1
The liberal account presents the ruling as a defense of constitutional checks and the Senate’s confirmation role. Rogoff was sworn in on July 15 after the Seattle office lacked a Senate-confirmed leader and was fired less than an hour later. Bastian said allowing such removals would “upend the framework created by the Constitution and the statutes,” weakening the incentive for presidents to nominate candidates capable of winning Senate approval.1
The conservative account emphasizes a different tension: the judge was appointed by former President Barack Obama, and the ruling could expand judicial control over executive appointments. Its legal analysis notes that the dispute may reach the Supreme Court, where limits on presidential removal have generally involved “inferior officers with limited duties and no policymaking or administrative authority.”3 That framing casts Rogoff’s position as constitutionally unsettled rather than simply protected.
Even if the ruling survives appeal, its practical effect may be limited. Former federal prosecutor Bill Shipley warned that the attorney general could reassign Seattle’s personnel, leaving Rogoff “working alone.”3 The Justice Department has already signaled that the fight will continue, saying it will seek an immediate stay and appeal the decision.3
The competing interpretations converge on one point: the case is larger than Rogoff’s job. It tests how vacancy law, presidential removal power and judicial independence interact when the executive branch and Senate have not produced a confirmed successor.