⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Roger Rogoff was sworn in as the top federal prosecutor for western Washington, then told less than an hour later that President Trump had removed him. The federal judges in that district, rather than the President, had appointed him on July 15, 2026. Rogoff sued to challenge the firing. U.S. attorneys ordinarily take office through presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. But federal law supplies a fallback when an office remains vacant. Under Section 546, the Attorney General may make an interim appointment lasting up to 120 days. If that period expires, the district court may appoint a U.S. attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. That was the route used for Rogoff. On October 1, a district judge issued a preliminary injunction directing the government to recognize him as U.S. attorney and not obstruct his work. A preliminary injunction provides temporary protection while litigation continues, based in part on whether the person seeking it is likely to win. This appeal challenges that order, not a final trial judgment. The government will rely on another provision, Section 541, which makes each U.S. attorney subject to removal by the President. It will argue that this includes court appointees. Rogoff will argue that the special court-appointment provision protects his service until the vacancy is filled through presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. The dispute also concerns the Constitution's Appointments Clause. It allows Congress to entrust appointment of subordinate federal officers to courts, among other options. The parties agree that courts can make these appointments. They disagree about whether the President must retain power to fire the appointee, and whether the Attorney General's control over prosecutions is enough to preserve executive accountability. The judges will also ask about harm to Rogoff and the public, and who could lawfully run the office if his removal stands. You will hear constitutional avoidance: interpreting a statute, where reasonably possible, to avoid serious constitutional problems. That is not permission to rewrite an otherwise clear law. The government will argue first.

Rogoff v. Trump, et al. (No. 26-6445) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 23, 2026.