President Donald Trump fired Roger Rogoff as U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington on Wednesday, less than an hour after federal judges unanimously appointed him to the post. The administration cited its Article II authority to remove the court-appointed prosecutor, escalating a conflict over executive versus judicial appointment powers.
Donald Trump Removes Roger Rogoff from the Western District of Washington
The Appointment and Immediate Dismissal in Seattle
Roger Rogoff, a veteran state and federal prosecutor, former state jurist, and former director of the state’s office of independent investigations, was sworn in as the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington shortly before 8 a.m. on Wednesday at the U.S. courthouse in downtown Seattle. His tenure, however, lasted less than 60 minutes. Rogoff said he went to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and asked to meet with Charles Neil Floyd, whose 120-day interim term in the position ended in February. While waiting in a lobby, Rogoff said he received an email from the Trump administration informing him he’d been removed.
The firing followed a unanimous decision by the court—comprising 17 active and senior judges appointed by five presidents—to appoint Rogoff to the vacancy. Chief Judge David Estudillo stated that the court acted to ensure the integrity and effective administration of justice in a district that had been without a confirmed U.S. Attorney for a significant period. “In view of the longstanding United States Attorney vacancy in this District, and to ensure the integrity and effective administration of justice in this District, the Court has unanimously decided to appoint a United States Attorney,” the chief judge said in an order. “Mr. Rogoff has deep ties to the Western District of Washington and has devoted his career to serving its citizens.”
Chief Judge David Estudillo Defends the Court’s Appointment of Roger Rogoff
Legal Justification and Executive Authority
The White House justification for the termination rested on presidential authority under Article II of the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. 541(c). According to Justice Department spokeswoman Emily Covington, the White House informed Rogoff in writing: “The President of the United States has directed that I inform you that, pursuant to his authority under 28 U.S.C. 541(c) and Article II of the Constitution, you are hereby removed from the office of the United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington.” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the administration’s stance on social media, arguing that while judges have the power to appoint temporary prosecutors, the president retains the authority to fire them.
“District court judges can appoint a temporary U.S. Attorney, and POTUS can fire them,” Blanche stated. He added that the judges who appointed Rogoff “abandoned the time-honored process of consultation with the administration so that the selected U.S. Attorney is qualified to serve in the administration.” The administration had previously named Charles Neil Floyd, a former immigration judge, as interim U.S. attorney last October but never forwarded his nomination to the Senate. When Floyd’s time expired, the administration shifted his title to first assistant U.S. attorney while leaving the top post empty, a maneuver that has faced skepticism from federal appeals courts.
Todd Blanche and the Department of Justice Cite 28 U.S.C. 541(c) to Justify Termination
Rogoff’s Response and Potential Legal Challenges
Rogoff has retained national firm HKM Employment Attorneys LLP and is currently weighing legal action against the administration. He characterized the current situation as “untenable, not constitutional, and not legal.” Rogoff maintained that while the president possesses the power to select U.S. Attorneys, that authority is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. “The president gets to choose his US attorney, but only with the advice and consent of the Senate,” Rogoff said.
Political Tensions and National Context
The Seattle firing is the latest development in a broader struggle between the Department of Justice and federal courts. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who had opposed Floyd for the job, issued a statement condemning the move, accusing the administration of bypassing constitutional norms. “Throughout his career, he has demonstrated an outstanding commitment to public service, and he was appointed legally by the federal judges in the Western District of Washington,” the senator said. “This administration doesn’t want to deal with advice and consent—they just want to install cronies to carry out a corrupt political agenda.”
Senator Patty Murray Condemns the Administration for Bypassing Constitutional Advice and Consent
Previous attempts by the administration to install interim prosecutors have seen similar friction. In New Jersey, Alina Habba resigned in December after an appeals court ruled she had been serving unlawfully. In Virginia, Lindsey Halligan left her position after a judge concluded her appointment was unlawful. In those cases, the administration also fired court-appointed successors, including James Hundley. Whether the Seattle case marks the beginning of a legal battle over executive termination authority remains the central, unresolved question as Rogoff and his legal team deliberate their next steps.
Find more reporting in our News section.