Former Seattle U.S. Attorney Roger Rogoff has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration after being dismissed less than an hour after taking the oath of office. Rogoff argues that his removal was unconstitutional and unlawfully interfered with the authority of federal judges who had unanimously appointed him to serve as the interim U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington.
Rogoff was appointed by federal judges to temporarily fill the vacancy until a presidential nominee could be confirmed by the Senate. However, shortly after his swearing-in, he received notice that President Donald Trump had ordered his termination. In his lawsuit, Rogoff contends that the President’s actions violated both federal law and constitutional safeguards governing judicial appointments to vacant U.S. attorney positions.
The case highlights an ongoing dispute between the judiciary and the executive branch over the appointment and removal of interim U.S. attorneys. While U.S. attorneys are ordinarily nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, federal law permits district court judges to appoint interim prosecutors when vacancies persist beyond the Attorney General’s 120-day temporary appointment period. The Justice Department has defended Rogoff’s dismissal, maintaining that the President has the legal authority to remove court-appointed U.S. attorneys.
Rogoff’s lawsuit is expected to test the limits of presidential authority over judicially appointed federal prosecutors and could establish an important legal precedent. Similar disputes have recently arisen in other jurisdictions, including New Jersey and Virginia, where court-appointed or acting U.S. attorneys faced legal challenges over their appointments and removals. The outcome of Rogoff’s case may therefore have broader implications for the balance of powers between the executive and judicial branches in filling key federal prosecutorial positions.
