An Obama-appointed judge blocked President Trump from firing Washington U.S. Attorney Roger Rogoff, a ruling the White House says undermines constitutional authority.
Fox News Digital reported that U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian issued a preliminary injunction reinstating Rogoff as U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington and barring the administration from treating him as lawfully removed.
Bastian ordered the Justice Department to recognize Rogoff as the rightful officeholder and restore his ability to serve. Rogoff holds the post through a court appointment under the statutory process for filling a vacancy, not a standard presidential nomination confirmed by the Senate.
The ruling sets up a direct fight over whether the president can remove a U.S. attorney selected by federal judges. The White House and outside legal critics say the order invades core executive power under Article II of the Constitution.
White House spokesperson Lauren Bis framed the decision as another judicial attempt to stall the administration.
Bis told Fox News Digital:
"This is yet another ruling from an activist judge trying to thwart President Trump’s agenda and undermine his constitutional authority. U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President,"
The Justice Department’s Rapid Response account said the department rejects the outcome and will fight it at once.
"We disagree with the decision and intend to seek an immediate stay and will appeal,"
That path points first toward the Ninth Circuit. Critics say the Supreme Court may have to settle the question if the appeals court leaves the injunction in place.
The legal backdrop does not favor a permanent judicial lock on the office. In 1926, the Supreme Court held in Myers v. United States that the president generally has constitutional power to remove executive branch officers. The case involved a postmaster under President Woodrow Wilson, but the principle reaches officers who exercise executive authority.
A 1979 Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion went further on this exact category. It concluded that the president’s statutory authority to remove “each United States attorney” also covers prosecutors appointed by federal judges when a vacancy is filled that way.
A federal appeals court reached the same conclusion in 2000, according to the reporting. Those authorities treat U.S. attorneys as executive officers, not judicial employees, even when judges make the interim pick under statute.
Bastian, first nominated by President Barack Obama in 2013, did not adopt that line. His injunction keeps the court-appointed prosecutor in place and directs the Justice Department to treat him as the lawful holder of the office.
Mike Davis, founder and president of Article III, called the ruling a break with the constitutional design and tied it to the Seattle bench.
"Another lawless and dangerous ruling. Violating the separation of powers. By another Democrat activist judge. This time? Seattle Obama Judge Stanley Bastian,"
Davis argued that judges selected their own U.S. attorney, the president fired him through the attorney general, and Article II gives the president clear power to remove Justice Department officials. He said Bastian created an unnecessary constitutional crisis by ordering removal of the president’s pick and installing what Davis described as the judge’s preferred figure, and that the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court must correct it.
Jeff Clark, litigation vice president at the Oversight Project, predicted reversal and grounded the dispute in the same Article II rule.
"The President's power to remove U.S. Attorneys must be unfettered consistent with Article II of the Constitution. Judge Stanley Bastian is wrong here to order Rogoff reinstated. I predict Judge Bastian will eventually be reversed, whether at the Ninth Circuit or by the Supreme Court,"
Brian Nieves, a partner at Holtzman Vogel, put the objection in blunt institutional terms.
"Judicial overreach, plain and simple. The judiciary does not get to run the Executive Branch. Period,"
Critics also noted that Bastian’s first name appeared misspelled in the order, missing the “e” in Stanley. One online commenter used the error to mock the quality of the work. The reporting does not quote the full order text or list the docket number.
The Rogoff dispute is not isolated. Trump’s team has faced a string of legal fights over U.S. attorney appointments in New Jersey, Virginia, and New York.
In New Jersey, federal courts rejected the administration’s effort to keep Alina Habba leading the U.S. attorney’s office after her interim term ended. Desiree Grace, the judges’ original appointee, did not simply take over the office after that rejection. The Washington case now adds another venue where a court-appointed prosecutor and a presidential removal effort collide.
Related coverage described other Trump firing timelines in sharp terms, including removal moves measured in minutes after an appointment. The core Washington order still turns on the same structural question: who controls the chief federal prosecutor in a district when judges fill a vacancy and the president later seeks to replace that person.
Bastian’s preliminary injunction does three concrete things. It reinstates Rogoff. It bars the administration from treating him as having been lawfully removed. And it orders the Justice Department to recognize him as the rightful officeholder and restore his ability to serve.
The reporting does not provide the full statutory findings, hearing date, or bond terms. It also does not name the administration’s preferred replacement for the Western District of Washington. What it does establish is the operative result: the court, not the president, currently controls who holds that U.S. attorney title while the stay and appeal play out.
U.S. attorneys supervise federal prosecutions, major investigations, and charging decisions inside their districts. Leaving a court-installed prosecutor in place against the president’s removal effort means the executive branch does not fully direct one of its own law-enforcement officers until higher courts act.
DOJ has already said it will seek an immediate stay. If the Ninth Circuit refuses, the administration can press the Supreme Court. Myers, the 1979 OLC opinion, and the 2000 appeals ruling give the president’s side a long paper trail arguing that removal power follows the office.
Judges do not run the executive branch. When a district court installs its own prosecutor and freezes a presidential removal, higher courts should put the constitutional chain of command back in place.
