Ninth Circuit: Stays Roger Rogoff Reinstatement After DOJ Request

• The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has temporarily stayed an order that reinstated Roger Rogoff as the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington.
• The Justice Department requested the administrative stay, arguing Rogoff's reinstatement was indefensible without presidential accountability.
• U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian had previously ruled that the Trump administration exceeded its authority by firing Rogoff less than an hour after his July 15 swearing-in.
• Rogoff, appointed by the district court after a vacancy, did not oppose the stay request but maintains the administration is unlikely to succeed on appeal.
• The case underscores a legal challenge to presidential authority in appointing and removing U.S. Attorneys, with implications for executive power.

This ongoing legal dispute highlights significant questions about the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches concerning federal appointments and the presidential power to remove US attorneys.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a temporary administrative stay, effectively pausing a lower court's order that reinstated Roger Rogoff as the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington. This action by the Ninth Circuit, delivered in a brief order on Sunday, responds to an emergency request from the Justice Department. The immediate purpose of this administrative stay is to maintain the existing situation while the court considers the Trump administration's plea for a more extended stay pending a full appeal.

The controversy began after the last Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington resigned in 2023, leaving a vacancy. In January of the current year, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington announced its intention to appoint an attorney to fill the role temporarily if the administration did not act by February. Following through on this, the court appointed Roger Rogoff on July 15 and administered his oath of office on the same day. However, less than an hour after Rogoff was sworn in, the Trump administration intervened. The deputy director of personnel sent an email indicating that President Trump had directed Rogoff's removal from office. This swift dismissal prompted Rogoff to initiate legal action, naming President Trump, the Executive Office, the Department of Justice, and Todd Blanche, who was then Acting Attorney General and is now the confirmed Attorney General, as defendants in his lawsuit, challenging the Trump administration's U.S. attorney removal authority.

U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian had previously sided with Rogoff, ruling that the Trump administration exceeded its authority in firing him so quickly after his appointment. The Justice Department, in its emergency stay request, characterized Judge Bastian's injunction as both "unprecedented and indefensible." They contended that allowing Rogoff to serve as the chief federal prosecutor without accountability to the president, and by extension the public, would be inappropriate given the core executive power involved in criminal law enforcement. The Justice Department further argued that the district court's order contradicts congressional directives that subject all U.S. Attorneys to presidential removal. They asserted that the ruling effectively grants the Senate an unconstitutional veto over the removal of an executive officer, a power the U.S. Supreme Court has previously deemed impermissible. A Justice Department spokesperson expressed satisfaction with the Ninth Circuit's decision, reiterating the department's commitment to defending the president's authority to remove U.S. attorneys.

While Roger Rogoff did not oppose the Justice Department's request for a stay pending appeal, he clarified that this does not signify his concession regarding the administration's likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal or its ability to meet the other requirements for a stay. Rogoff stated his gratification with the District Court's injunction, emphasizing its role in protecting the Senate's function in appointing U.S. Attorneys and upholding the rule of law. He framed his lawsuit not as a personal matter, but as a stand for the government's adherence to constitutional and legal processes in appointing federal attorneys. Rogoff indicated that his decision not to oppose the stay was to allow focus on an expedited defense of the District Court's decision. He voiced concern that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington continues under leadership he considers unlawfully appointed, potentially subjecting the vital work of federal prosecutors to challenge. This ongoing legal dispute highlights significant questions about the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches concerning federal appointments and the presidential power to remove US attorneys.

This case highlights ongoing legal challenges to presidential authority in appointing and removing U.S. Attorneys, which could impact the stability and legitimacy of federal prosecutions and the actions taken by those offices. Lawyers should monitor the appeal's outcome for precedents regarding executive power and potential challenges to federal enforcement actions in districts with disputed leadership.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News