The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has temporarily halted the reinstatement of Roger Rogoff as the United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington, following a lower court’s decision that deemed his dismissal by President Donald Trump unlawful. This administrative stay maintains the current status quo while the appellate court reviews the case.
In July 2026, the district judges of Western Washington appointed Rogoff, a former judge and veteran prosecutor, as U.S. Attorney after the position had remained vacant without a Senate-confirmed appointee. Less than an hour after his appointment, President Trump dismissed Rogoff, prompting him to file a lawsuit challenging the termination. U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian ruled in Rogoff’s favor, stating that the president could not unilaterally remove a court-appointed U.S. Attorney. Judge Bastian emphasized that federal law allows district judges to appoint a U.S. Attorney “until the vacancy is filled,” without specifying presidential authority to dismiss such appointees. ([latimes.com](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2026-10-02/judge-overturns-trumps-decision-to-fire-court-appointed-u-s-attorney-in-seattle?utm_source=openai))
The Justice Department promptly appealed Judge Bastian’s decision, leading to the Ninth Circuit’s recent administrative stay. This stay is procedural, intended to preserve the existing situation while the appellate court considers the merits of the case. ([whbl.com](https://whbl.com/2026/10/04/appeals-court-pauses-reinstatement-of-fired-seattle-federal-prosecutor/?utm_source=openai))
This legal dispute underscores the ongoing tension between the executive branch and the judiciary over the appointment and removal of U.S. Attorneys. Traditionally, these positions are filled by presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. However, in instances where such appointments are not made, federal law permits district courts to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys. The Trump administration has challenged this process, asserting the president’s authority to remove court-appointed prosecutors. ([washingtonpost.com](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/10/01/rogoff-us-attorney-seattle-trump/91840c62-bdde-11f1-81fc-9b76f8343b6c_story.html?utm_source=openai))
Rogoff’s case is particularly notable as he is the first court-appointed U.S. Attorney to legally contest his dismissal by the Trump administration. The outcome of this appeal could have significant implications for the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches concerning federal prosecutorial appointments. ([cbsnews.com](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-blocks-trump-firing-top-federal-prosecutor-seattle-roger-rogoff/?utm_source=openai))
As the Ninth Circuit reviews the case, the legal community is closely monitoring the proceedings, recognizing the potential impact on the interpretation of federal appointment statutes and the delineation of authority between the branches of government.