Trump Fired a Federal Prosecutor One Hour After He Took Office. Now He’s Fighting Back.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.comDonald Trump has spent the last year trying to put loyalists in charge of federal prosecutors’ offices across the country.There’s just been one problem. The law keeps getting in his f*****g way.And now a former federal prosecutor named Roger Rogoff is taking the Trump administration to court in a case that could determine just how much power a president actually has to remove prosecutors he doesn’t want and replace them with people he does.Fired in under an hourThe U.S. attorney’s office for the Western District of Washington had gone more than three years without a Senate-confirmed leader. Federal law provides a process for exactly that situation. The attorney general can appoint a temporary U.S. attorney for 120 days. After that expires, the federal district court can appoint someone to serve until the vacancy is filled.So the federal judges — unanimously — appointed Roger Rogoff, a former federal prosecutor with more than 30 years of public service.Rogoff took the oath of office. Less than an hour later, he got an email from the White House. Donald Trump had fired him.Now, normally, a president firing a U.S. attorney wouldn’t necessarily be remarkable. U.S. attorneys nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate are executive-branch officials, and federal law explicitly says they’re subject to removal by the president.But Rogoff wasn’t appointed by Donald Trump. He was appointed by the federal court, under authority Congress specifically gave the judiciary.And that’s where this gets interesting.Rogoff is suing, and his argument is pretty straightforward: what the hell is the point of Congress giving federal judges the power to appoint a temporary U.S. attorney if the president can just fire that person five minutes later? His lawyers argue that letting Trump immediately can whoever the judges appoint would nullify that entire part of the law.Who holds this authority mattersThis isn’t some obscure personnel dispute. U.S. attorneys are among the most powerful law-enforcement officials in the federal government. They decide which federal cases their offices prosecute. They oversee investigations. They work with the FBI and other agencies. They can bring the full weight of the United States government down on an individual.I’ve spent enough of my life around law enforcement to know that who holds that authority f*****g matters.Prosecutors aren’t supposed to be the president’s personal attorneys. Their job isn’t to protect his friends and prosecute his enemies. Their client is the United States.And that’s why what’s happening across the country should concern people. According to POLITICO, the Trump administration has tried to sidestep the standard appointment process in at least seven federal districts as it works to install preferred prosecutors.The pattern is remarkably consistent. The attorney general appoints someone temporarily. That appointment has a legal time limit. When the clock runs out, the administration finds another title for that same person and tries to keep them running the office anyway. And when federal judges use their statutory authority to appoint somebody else? Trump fires them.We’ve already watched this movieIn New Jersey, Trump tried to install one of his former personal attorneys, Alina Habba, as U.S. attorney. When her temporary appointment expired, the federal judges selected a different prosecutor, Desiree Leigh Grace.Trump fired Grace.The administration then tried to keep Habba effectively running the office under a rotating set of titles. Eventually the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Habba’s appointment was illegal.In New York, the administration tried something similar with John Sarcone in the U.S. attorney’s office in Albany. A federal judge rejected the maneuver and disqualified Sarcone from participating in investigations involving New York Attorney General Letitia James. That case is still being fought on appeal.So Rogoff’s lawsuit isn’t happening in isolation. It’s the next battle in a much larger fight over whether the administration can manipulate vacancies, titles, and removal powers to keep its preferred people running federal prosecutors’ offices — all without ever going through Senate confirmation.Here’s where I want to be carefulBecause the legal question isn’t as simple as saying Trump obviously can’t do this.There’s a federal statute that says, pretty clearly: “Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.” And in 1979, during the Carter administration, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the president could remove a court-appointed U.S. attorney. That’s a serious argument for Trump’s side.But there’s another legal principle at work: generally, the power to remove an official follows the power to appoint them, unless Congress says otherwise. So you’ve got two principles running straight into each other. Congress gave courts the authority to make these temporary appointments. Presidents, meanwhile, traditionally have broad authority to remove executive-branch officials.And this Supreme Court has been extremely receptive to expansive presidential removal power. That’s what makes Rogoff’s case such a big deal.If Trump wins, presidents could effectively neutralize the judicial appointment process by simply firing any court-appointed prosecutor they don’t like. If Rogoff wins, the courts will have established a real limit on presidential removal power — and protected the mechanism Congress built for when the normal confirmation process breaks down.And there’s another wrinkle. At least three Supreme Court justices have already questioned whether judges should have this appointment power at all. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, suggested in a footnote last year that they had doubts about whether the Constitution even lets courts appoint what they called “inferior executive officers” — which could include U.S. attorneys.So if this reaches the Supreme Court, the administration could make an even broader argument: not only can Trump fire a court-appointed U.S. attorney, maybe federal judges shouldn’t be allowed to appoint them in the first place. And if the Court agrees, you’ve eliminated one of the few checks Congress created for when a president can’t get his prosecutors confirmed.This isn’t about one job in SeattleIt’s about who controls federal prosecution in the United States.The president absolutely has a role. He nominates U.S. attorneys. The Senate confirms them. That’s the constitutional process. But if you don’t have the votes — or you don’t bother getting your nominees confirmed — you don’t get to just invent a new process because you don’t like the f*****g answer.The Trump administration keeps testing that proposition. Courts tell them an appointment scheme is illegal, so they change titles. They fire the replacements. They try another legal theory. And now, for the first time, one of the court-appointed prosecutors Trump fired is standing up and saying: No. You don’t have the authority to do this.Roger Rogoff says he knew there was a good chance Trump would fire him when he accepted the appointment. He took it anyway. And after more than 30 years as a public servant, he says he’s bringing this case because he believes in the rule of law.Good. Because somebody has to find out where the line actually is.A president is supposed to appoint prosecutors. He’s not supposed to own them.And those are two very f*****g different things.🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for lifeYou’ll get the link in your welcome email.GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!