Federal Court Rules Presidents Must Follow Personnel Laws
A federal judge triggered an outbreak of checks and balances Thursday by ruling that President Donald Trump could not immediately fire Roger Rogoff, the court-appointed U.S. attorney in Seattle, merely because Trump discovered that someone else had appointed him. U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian reinstated Rogoff, who was selected by federal judges to fill a vacancy and dismissed by Trump less than an hour after being sworn in. The 54-minute tenure gave Rogoff ample opportunity to rename the office after the president, indict a cable-news panel and place the Constitution on administrative leave, none of which he accomplished.
Bastian ruled that a president may not remove a U.S. attorney appointed by a district court before a Senate-confirmed successor arrives, reviving the obsolete theory that statutes continue to operate after the president becomes annoyed. The decision replaces the administration’s streamlined “Trump sees, Trump fires” system with a maze of judges, laws and elected senators, all demanding a role in government despite lacking personal ownership of Mar-a-Lago. “This is a very dangerous ruling, probably the most dangerous ruling ever issued by anyone wearing a robe,” Trump said. “If presidents cannot fire people within 54 minutes, employees will start believing they have jobs, and then America will have no discipline whatsoever.”
The ruling also creates the risk that federal prosecutors may answer to law rather than monitor presidential mood changes in real time. Sen. Patty Murray praised the decision as a victory for the rule of law, confirming administration concerns that Seattle is attempting to restore the pre-Trump custom of governing public offices through written rules instead of televised irritation. The administration is expected to appeal on the grounds that judicially appointed prosecutors are illegitimate unless first praised by Trump, introduced on television and approved by whichever Justice Department official remains employed after lunch. Bastian’s decision therefore establishes that checks and balances are an unlawful attempt by the Constitution to interfere with presidential customer service.
* None of the quotes in this article were spoken by an actual person. More info.