Why do anti-Trump judges always seem to get his cases?

U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg has come under scrutiny after he prevented President Donald Trump from deporting many Venezuelan migrants. This scrutiny is shared by critics who feel that the judiciary is overstepping. On another note, there’s an Obama-nominated judge who halted Trump’s attempt to dismiss Roger Rogoff, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington. This ruling compels the Justice Department to recognize Rogoff as the rightful officeholder.

White House spokesperson Lauren Bis remarked that this represents another instance of an activist judge attempting to obstruct Trump’s agenda, asserting that U.S. attorneys are appointed at the President’s discretion.

Judge Stanley Bastian issued a preliminary injunction that restores Rogoff to his position and prohibits the administration from treating him as if he was lawfully removed. This ruling raises a complex legal question about a president’s authority to dismiss a U.S. attorney who has been appointed by federal judges. Previous legal opinions from 1979 and a 2000 federal appeals court decision suggested that such authority does indeed rest with the president.

The DOJ expressed disagreement and plans to seek a stay and an appeal regarding the decision.

Critics, including some legal experts and conservative lawyers, have voiced strong opposition to Bastian’s ruling, arguing that it undermines the president’s constitutional authority over the executive branch. Mike Davis, founder and president of Article III, lamented what he sees as yet another overreach by a Democrat-appointed judge.

Some have even pointed out a spelling error in Bastian’s order, noting that “Stanley” was misspelled, which—depending on your perspective—might hint at the quality of legal work involved.

The backlash continued, with comments emphasizing that Bastian’s ruling is essentially creating a constitutional crisis by mandating that a U.S. attorney, handpicked by federal judges, be reinstated, thereby infringing upon presidential authority. Others predict that Bastian’s order will ultimately be overturned, potentially at the Ninth Circuit or even by the Supreme Court.

Further complicating discussions around these appointments, historical cases like Myers v. United States established precedent for presidential authority to remove executive branch officials without Senate approval. More recently, the Justice Department has concluded that the president’s statutory power includes the ability to remove U.S. attorneys appointed by federal judges.

This case is the latest in a sequence of legal confrontations regarding Trump’s U.S. attorney postings, having faced similar issues in states like New Jersey and Virginia. In an earlier situation in New Jersey, after an interim appointment expired, federal courts denied the administration’s attempt to permit the former appointee to remain in power.

Rogoff’s case further complicates matters, as it challenges the president’s power to dismiss a U.S. attorney appointed in the traditional manner for filling vacancies.