Story
October 3, 2026
Seattle Ruling Challenges Trump’s Firing Power—But May Not Put Rogoff in Control
A federal judge restored Roger Rogoff as Seattle’s U.S. attorney, ruling that Trump could not remove a prosecutor appointed by district judges. The Justice Department will appeal, while conservatives warn the administration may still control the office’s staffing and resources.
A Seattle courtroom has turned a dispute over one prosecutor into a broader test of who controls the federal government’s U.S. attorneys: the president, the Senate, or the courts.
U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian restored Roger Rogoff to the post after ruling that President Donald Trump could not unilaterally remove him less than an hour after district judges appointed him. Bastian said Rogoff was the “rightful holder of that office” and barred the administration from obstructing his access to its powers and resources.1
The ruling rests on a separation-of-powers argument. Federal law permits the attorney general to appoint an interim U.S. attorney for 120 days; if the vacancy continues, district judges may appoint a prosecutor until the president nominates and the Senate confirms a replacement. Bastian said allowing Trump to dismiss a court-appointed prosecutor would weaken the Senate’s advice-and-consent role and encourage presidents to bypass confirmation.
Rogoff’s supporters therefore see the decision as a defense of statutory limits and institutional checks. Rogoff said he was focused on “getting to work for the people of Western Washington,” while the Justice Department said it would seek an immediate stay and appeal.1
The conservative account accepts the ruling’s immediate effect but emphasizes its uncertain reach. Abhishek Kambli, a former Justice Department lawyer, said the dispute could ultimately reach the Supreme Court, where the question would intersect with limits on presidential removal power and the constitutional status of U.S. attorneys.2
That perspective also highlights a practical vulnerability: even if Rogoff remains the formal officeholder, the attorney general may control staffing. Former federal prosecutor Bill Shipley warned that the department could “empty the office” by reassigning personnel, leaving Rogoff nominally in charge but operating largely alone.2
The competing interpretations converge on one point: the ruling is only an opening round. For now, Rogoff has the title and a court order; the administration retains an appeal—and potentially substantial control over the machinery needed to make that title effective.