Case: Rogoff v. Trump
2:26-cv-02566 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Filed Date: July 21, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenged the President's removal of a court-appointed U.S. Attorney less than one hour after he was sworn in.
The U.S. Attorney position for the Western District of Washington had been vacant since June 2023, and no President had nominated anyone to fill the vacancy. After a series of interim appointments, the statutory time limits for Executive Branch interim appointments expired. On July 15, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington exercised its authority under 28 U.S.C § 546(d), which allows a district court to name a U.S. Attorney once the Attorney General's 120-day interim appointment has lapsed, and provides that the court-appointed U.S. Attorney serves until the vacancy is filled by a Senate-confirmed nominee. Less than one hour after he was sworn in, the President removed him.
On July 21, 2026, the removed court-appointed United States Attorney filed this individual lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the President, the Executive Office of the President, the Acting Attorney General, and the Department of Justice. Represented by HKM Employment Attorneys LLP and Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, the plaintiff alleged that the firing violated the plain text of § 546(d) and that it violated the Appointments Clause by nullifying Congress's decision to vest interim appointments in the courts. The plaintiff requested a declaration that the firing was unlawful and void, a declaration that the firing violated his statutory right to occupy the office, and an injunction prohibiting defendants from effectuating the firing, and costs and attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
This case was assigned to District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez.
On July 21, 2026, the plaintiff, a court-appointed U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington, filed a motion for preliminary injunction that requested to invalidate his purported removal by the President and restore him to office until a Senate-confirmed successor was appointed. He argued that the removal violated 28 U.S.C. § 546(d) and the Appointments Clause, and that he was likely to succeed on the merits, as the statute permits court-appointed U.S. Attorneys to serve until a Senate-confirmed replacement is installed. Further, the plaintiff claimed that without injunctive relief, he would suffer irreparable harm, including the impairment of his statutory duties and disruption to the U.S. Attorney's Office. The motion further asserted that the balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction, as the removal undermined separation of powers and the administration of justice in the district.
On July 22, 2026, Judge Ricardo S. Martinez recused himself, and the case was transferred to Judge Stanley A. Bastian, the sole regular visiting judge, citing a designation order issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On July 28, 2026, the defendants contested this reassignment and argued that the recused judge had improperly influenced the process by selecting the visiting judge rather than referring the case to the Ninth Circuit's Chief Judge for an independent reassignment. The defendants maintained that this deviation from standard procedure undermined the impartiality of the reassignment process and warranted intervention by the appellate court. The defendants requested that the case be referred to the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit for reassignment to a judge independent of both the recused judge and the district's regular visiting judges. In the alternative, they sought the recusal of the visiting judge currently assigned to the matter.
On July 30, 2026, the plaintiff filed a Statement of non-opposition to defendants' suggestion of reassignment or recusal. The plaintiff's statement explicitly declined to oppose either the reassignment or recusal request, deferring entirely to the court's determination regarding the appropriate administrative mechanism for reassignment.
The same day, the court denied the defendants' motion for recusal or reassignment. The court rejected the defendants' arguments, finding no legal or factual basis to support the claims and reaffirmed its impartiality and commitment to administering justice fairly, and emphasized that no conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety existed. 2026 WL 2283448.
On August 11, 2026, the defendants filed a response in opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction seeking reinstatement as a court-appointed U.S. Attorney after his removal by the President. They argued that the plaintiff could not satisfy the legal standard for injunctive relief, as he failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, or that the balance of equities and public interest favored his position. The defendants contended that the President possessed both statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 541(c) and constitutional authority under Article II to remove U.S. Attorneys at will, while the plaintiff's interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 546(d) was misplaced. They further asserted that the plaintiff's removal did not constitute irreparable harm and that reinstatement would impose greater harm on the government. If the court granted injunctive relief, the defendants requested that it be stayed pending appeal or accompanied by a 14-day administrative stay and a bond.
On August 18, 2026, the plaintiff filed a reply in support of a motion for a preliminary injunction to block his removal from office by the President and Attorney General. He argued that 28 U.S.C. § 546(d) barred his termination, citing the statute's text, legislative history, and Ninth Circuit precedent, while also contending that the removal violated the Appointments Clause by undermining Congress's authority to vest appointment power in the courts. The plaintiff further asserted that irreparable harm would result from his removal, as the loss of statutory authority could not be remedied by damages, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored injunctive relief.
On September 22, 2026, the court heard the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. On October 1, 2026, the court granted the preliminary injunction. The court held that the President lacked authority to remove a U.S. Attorney appointed by a federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 546(d), as the statutory framework vests appointment—and by extension, tenure—solely in the judiciary when the Attorney General’s 120-day interim appointment period expires. The court found Plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm absent relief, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored injunctive relief. The order restored Plaintiff to his position as the lawful U.S. Attorney and barred Defendants from treating any other individual as holding the office. The preliminary injunction remains in effect until the vacancy is filled by a Senate-confirmed successor.
The same day, the defendant filed an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (26-6445). In the appellate court, the defendant filed a motion to stay lower court proceedings. On October 4 2026, the Ninth Circuit granted the defendants motion to stay pending appeal. The court noted that the administrative stay “is only intended to preserve the status quo until the substantive motion for a stay pending appeal can be considered on the merits, and does not constitute in any way a decision as to the merits” of the appeal.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Haleigh Knowles (8/31/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73647676/parties/rogoff-v-trump/
Aminirad, Shannon G. (Washington)
Attorney, Donald Beaton
Attorney, Daniel Aguilar,
Attorney, Mr. David
Bailey, John P (Washington)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73647676/rogoff-v-trump/
Last updated Nov. 12, 2026, 3:21 a.m.
Docket for: Rogoff v. Trump
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 21, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Court- appointed U.S. Attorney
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Acting Attorney General of the United States
Executive Office of the President
President Donald J. Trump
U.S. Department of Justice
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
Western District of Washington 2:26-cv-02566
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 26-06445
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority:
Case Summary of Rogoff v. Trump, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48356/ (last updated 8/31/2026).