Skip to content
Bramble

US

Judge blocks Trump's firing of Seattle U.S. attorney Roger Rogoff

A federal judge ruled from the bench that President Trump cannot unilaterally fire a U.S. attorney appointed by a district court, reinstating Roger Rogoff in Seattle. The Justice Department said it will appeal.

4 outlets · 3L · 0C · 1R First reported Account updated

Updated (version 2). New coverage since the last version from ABC News, Washington Examiner.

Image: CBS News
Image: Washington Examiner
Image: Raw Story
Image: ABC News

1 / 4

The story, neutrally told

On Thursday 1 October, U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian blocked President Trump's firing of Roger Rogoff as U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington (Seattle), ruling from the bench at the end of a hearing. Bastian said the question was one of first impression and answered it plainly: "The president cannot unilaterally fire a United States attorney appointed by the district court." Rogoff was installed by the district's federal judges and took his oath on 15 July; Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that Trump had fired him less than an hour after he was sworn in.

Bastian ruled that Rogoff has been the "rightful holder of that office" since 15 July and granted his request to be reinstated until the Senate confirms a replacement; Trump nominated Simon Peter Serrano (called Pete Serrano by Raw Story) for the post last month. The judge also said Charles Neil Floyd, the first assistant who has been leading the office, "is not the United States attorney", and that authority for him to perform the role was "improperly granted"; Trump had signed an order the previous week directing Floyd to perform the office's functions. The oral order bars the administration from putting the firing into effect until a Senate-confirmed candidate fills the post, from removing Rogoff, denying him the office's benefits or resources, or obstructing his duties, and from treating anyone else as U.S. attorney.

Bastian granted Rogoff's request for a preliminary injunction and enjoined Blanche and the Executive Office of the President from taking further steps to effectuate his termination; ABC says Trump fired Rogoff by email. Bastian warned that allowing such firings would "upend the framework created by the Constitution and the statutes" balancing the president's power to appoint and the Senate's to confirm, and at the hearing asked DOJ's attorney what the point of the statute is "if the president can just within an hour terminate the person appointed". Rogoff's attorney, Hailyn Chen, argued the Appointments Clause was meant as a "Guardrail against executive cronyism"; Rogoff's lawsuit had argued that otherwise the executive could evade the Senate's advice-and-consent role indefinitely.

The Justice Department said it intends to appeal and will immediately seek to halt the ruling. The Justice Department's rapid response account on X said, "We disagree with the decision and intend to seek an immediate stay and will appeal"; the Washington Examiner reports Bastian declined to pause his ruling pending appeal, and that Trump fired Rogoff 54 minutes after the oath. Rogoff said he was gratified the court required compliance with the Constitution and federal law, adding, "Now I need to get to work."

The Seattle office has had no Senate-confirmed leader since mid-2023; Floyd began as interim U.S. attorney in October, his 120-day term expired in February, and he stayed on as first assistant, after which the district judges used their statutory authority to appoint Rogoff. Trump has tried to install preferred U.S. attorneys in Nevada, New York, Virginia and New Jersey, and courts have found those appointments unlawful; CBS says Rogoff appears to be the first ousted prosecutor to challenge his firing in court. Raw Story, citing Bloomberg News, noted the ruling leaves Rogoff serving under an attorney general who publicly opposed his appointment, and linked it to the Eastern District of Virginia, where Lindsey Halligan's appointment was held illegal and the prosecutions of James Comey and Letitia James were thrown out.

The Washington Examiner quoted former Justice Department lawyer Abhishek Kambli saying the dispute could reach the Supreme Court, and that Rogoff's position would be difficult if an appeals court reaches Article II removal powers; former prosecutor Bill Shipley noted the attorney general could still reassign Seattle staff elsewhere, leaving Rogoff working alone.

Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on.

Left3 outlets

Framing
CBS gives a detailed, procedural account of the ruling and the vacancy statute; ABC briefly calls it the latest escalation in the administration's battle with the judiciary; Raw Story casts it as another defeat for a Trump 'scheme' to bypass Senate confirmation.
Emphasis
The judge's reasoning and quotes; the pattern of court losses over U.S. attorney appointments, including the Halligan case.
Leaves out or plays down
None quotes a Justice Department argument beyond the plan to appeal; none reports outside legal commentary on the practical limits of the ruling.
For example
“The ruling from U.S. District judge Stanley Bastian is the latest escalation in the Trump administration's battle with the judiciary” — ABC News
“dealing yet another blow to the administration's workaround for installing prosecutors without Senate confirmation.” — Raw Story

Centre0 outlets

No centre outlet in our sources has covered this story yet.

Right1 outlet

Framing
The Washington Examiner reports the ruling straightforwardly, noting the judge is an Obama appointee, and adds legal experts on the appeal prospects and the limits of the ruling.
Emphasis
Bastian's Obama appointment; the 54-minute firing; Supreme Court prospects and the attorney general's power to reassign staff.
Leaves out or plays down
Does not mention Floyd, the Senate nominee Serrano, or the Halligan/Comey cases.
For example
“U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, granted Rogoff a preliminary injunction” — Washington Examiner
“making Rogoff’s position difficult if an appeals court reaches the president’s Article II powers.” — Washington Examiner