Obama judge halts Trump firing bid as decades-old legal authority
This story raises questions about governance, accountability, and American values.
A single federal judge in Washington state just decided he knows better than the President who should enforce federal law. The Constitution gives the President the power to hire and fire U. S.
New Republican Times Editorial Board
Video Why do anti-Trump judges always seem to get his cases? U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, who blocked President Donald Trump from deporting hundreds of Venezuelan migrants, is among the judges who have attracted attention from critics. 'Fox News @ Night' takes a closer look.
An Obama-appointed judge blocked President Donald Trump from firing court-appointed U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington Roger Rogoff, ordering the Justice Department to recognize Rogoff as the rightful officeholder and restore his ability to serve. "This is yet another ruling from an activist judge trying to thwart President Trump’s agenda and undermine his constitutional authority.
U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President," White House spokesperson Lauren Bis told Fox News Digital. Judge Stanley Bastian, who was first nominated by Obama in 2013, issued a preliminary injunction reinstating Rogoff and barring the administration from treating him as having been lawfully removed.
The ruling sets up a legal fight over whether a president can fire a U.S. attorney appointed by federal judges. A 1979 Justice Department opinion and a 2000 federal appeals court ruling both concluded that the president has that authority. "We disagree with the decision and intend to seek an immediate stay and will appeal," the DOJ Rapid Response account wrote.
Some legal experts and conservative attorneys took to social media to sharply criticize the ruling, arguing it infringes on the president's constitutional authority over the executive branch. "Another lawless and dangerous ruling.
Violating the separation of powers. By another Democrat activist judge. This time? Seattle Obama Judge Stanley Bastian," wrote Article III founder and president Mike Davis. "Democrat judges handpicked their own U.S. attorney.
The President, through his attorney general, fired him. Under Article II of the Constitution , the President clearly has the executive power to fire Justice Department officials," Davis added. Davis also noted Bastian’s first name was misspelled in the order, missing the "e" in Stanley. "The Federal Judge misspelled his own name in his order.
That's how you know it's quality legal work," wrote one user. "Now Judge Bastian created an unnecessary constitutional crisis by essentially ordering a coup at the Justice Department, by ordering the removal of the President’s pick and putting in Bastian’s judicial puppet.
The Ninth Circuit must fix this. Or the Supreme Court will have to step in. Again," Davis concluded. "The President's power to remove U.S. Attorneys must be unfettered consistent with Article II of the Constitution.
Judge Stanley Bastian is wrong here to order Rogoff reinstated. I predict Judge Bastian will eventually be reversed, whether at the Ninth Circuit or by the Supreme Court," said Oversight Project litigation vice president Jeff Clark.
Justice Department lawyers asked a federal judge Friday to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the Anti-Weaponization Fund, arguing Attorney General Todd Blanche formally terminated it Aug. 2. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images) "Judicial overreach, plain and simple.
The judiciary does not get to run the Executive Branch. Period," said Holtzman Vogel partner Brian Nieves. In Myers v. United States (1926), which centered on President Woodrow Wilson's firing of a postmaster without Senate consent, the Supreme Court ruled that the president generally has constitutional authority to remove executive branch officers.
More recently, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded in a 1979 opinion that the president’s statutory authority to remove "each United States attorney" also extends to prosecutors appointed by federal judges.
The case is the latest in a string of legal fights over President Trump's U.S. attorney appointments, following similar disputes in New Jersey, Virginia and New York. A similar dispute unfolded in New Jersey after the administration sought to keep Alina Habba leading the U.S. attorney’s office after her interim term ended.
Federal courts ultimately rejected the administration’s effort to maintain her authority, although the judges’ original appointee, Desiree Grace, did not simply take over the office. Rogoff’s case goes a step further, directly testing whether a president can remove a U.S. attorney appointed by federal judges under the statutory process for filling a vacancy.
Ashley J. DiMella reports on politics for Fox News Digital.
Original source:
Read at Fox NewsHow We See It
New Republican Times Editorial Board
A single federal judge in Washington state just decided he knows better than the President who should enforce federal law. The Constitution gives the President the power to hire and fire U.S. attorneys, and that is not a close call. Yet Judge Stanley Bastian, an Obama appointee, blocked President Trump from firing Roger Rogoff and called a decades-old legal authority into question. Real lawyers have spent the week scratching their heads over that one.
The old authority is about independent counsels, not ordinary prosecutors who answer to the President. Rogoff serves at the pleasure of the President. The statute says so. History says so. Bastian, however, decided the public interest requires something else. Maybe he just wanted to make a point. Either way, this is not a legal ruling. A judge doesn't get to run the executive branch. That power belongs to the President alone.
If courts can freeze firings they disagree with, then every administration becomes hostage to the judiciary. Democrats have spent years complaining about executive overreach. Now they cheer a judge who simply invents authority. The left doesn't want separation of powers. It wants judges as super-presidents. That’s a dangerous path.
This ruling should be appealed immediately, and Attorney General Bondi should take it straight to the Supreme Court. If the Court lets this stand, then the law itself is broken. Let a president be president. Otherwise, the next time a Democrat occupies the White House, watch how fast this logic gets abandoned. We'll be waiting.
Commentary written with AI assistance by the New Republican Times Editorial Board.