An Obama-appointed federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire court-appointed U.S. Attorney Roger Rogoff, turning a personnel fight into a bigger clash over executive power. The order requires the Justice Department to treat Rogoff as the rightful officeholder while the legal battle moves forward, and the administration is already signaling a fast appeal.
Judge Stanley Bastian, who was nominated by Barack Obama in 2013, issued a preliminary injunction that puts Rogoff back in place and prevents the government from treating him as removed. That move sets up a direct separation-of-powers showdown over whether a president can dismiss a U.S. attorney who was appointed through the federal courts’ vacancy process.
The White House did not hide its frustration. Lauren Bis, a White House spokesperson, called the ruling another example of an activist judge trying to block Trump’s agenda and said U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president.
The Justice Department was just as blunt, saying it disagreed with the decision and planned to seek an immediate stay while appealing. The dispute is drawing attention because older legal guidance cuts the other way, including a 1979 Justice Department opinion and a 2000 federal appeals court ruling that both recognized presidential removal authority in this area.
That legal backdrop is what makes the case so explosive. In Myers v. United States in 1926, the Supreme Court held that the president generally has constitutional power to remove executive branch officers, a ruling that conservatives say still matters a century later.
That’s why the reaction from conservative legal voices came so fast and so hard. Critics argued Bastian’s order crosses a line by inserting the judiciary into executive branch staffing decisions, and they said the president’s authority under Article II should control here.
One of the sharper responses came from Article III founder and president , who blasted the ruling as dangerous and said it violated the separation of powers. The criticism didn’t stop there, with others mocking the order’s details and arguing the judge was effectively trying to install his own preferred prosecutor.
Oversight Project litigation vice president also argued that the president’s power to remove U.S. attorneys has to remain broad and consistent with the Constitution. He predicted the ruling would eventually be overturned, either by the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court.
Holtzman Vogel partner took the same line, saying the judiciary does not get to run the executive branch. That kind of reaction reflects a broader conservative view that the courts have been stretching their reach far beyond their proper role.
The case also lands in the middle of a larger string of fights over Trump’s U.S. attorney picks. Similar disputes have already played out in New Jersey, Virginia and New York, and each one has raised fresh questions about how far the administration can go when filling top Justice Department posts.
New Jersey saw its own messy showdown when the administration tried to keep Alina Habba in place after her interim term expired. Courts rejected that push, but the outcome did not simply hand the office to the original appointee, Desiree Grace, which only added to the confusion around these appointments.
https://x.com/mrddmia/status/2105828388929933332
Rogoff’s case goes even further because it squarely tests whether a president can remove a U.S. attorney appointed by federal judges under the statutory process for filling a vacancy. For supporters of Trump’s position, the issue is not just about one prosecutor in Washington, but about whether unelected judges can hold onto executive branch power once the president decides otherwise.
