President Donald Trump fired Roger Rogoff as U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington on Wednesday, less than an hour after the district’s federal judges unanimously appointed him to the post. The administration cited its Article II authority to remove the court-selected prosecutor, while Rogoff is now exploring legal options to challenge the termination.
The Unanimous Appointment and Immediate Removal
The conflict in Seattle escalated early Wednesday morning when the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington moved to fill a long-standing vacancy in the U.S. Attorney’s office. The court, acting through a unanimous order from its 17 active and senior judges, selected Roger Rogoff to lead the office. Rogoff, a veteran prosecutor who previously served as a state judge and director of the state’s office of independent investigations, was sworn in before 8 a.m. at the federal courthouse in downtown Seattle.
The appointment was intended to resolve a leadership vacuum left after the expiration of the term for Charles Neil Floyd, a former immigration judge whom the administration had installed as an interim U.S. Attorney. When his 120-day term ended, the administration shifted Floyd’s title to “first assistant” while leaving the top post technically empty to bypass Senate confirmation. Chief Judge David Estudillo noted that the court acted because the administration failed to nominate a permanent successor, stating that the move was necessary to ensure the integrity and effective administration of justice in this District.
For more on this story, see Trump Fires Seattle U.S. Attorney Roger Rogoff Minutes After Appointment.
The administration’s response was swift. Less than an hour after taking the oath, Rogoff received a termination notice while waiting to meet with his predecessor at the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The letter, sent by the presidential personnel office, stated that the removal was carried out pursuant to his authority under 28 U.S.C. 541(c) and Article II of the Constitution.
Legal Battles and Executive Authority
Rogoff, who has retained the firm HKM Employment Attorneys LLP, maintains that the administration’s maneuver is legally untenable. He characterized the current situation as not constitutional, and not legal.
This is not the first time the administration has clashed with the judiciary over these appointments. Similar disputes occurred in New Jersey, Virginia, and northern New York. In Virginia, a judge previously declared an acting U.S. Attorney’s appointment unlawful, leading to the dismissal of indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and others. However, in those cases, the ousted appointees did not pursue litigation. Rogoff’s decision to retain counsel suggests a more aggressive legal strategy compared to previous instances.
Political Reaction and Future Stakes
The firing drew sharp condemnation from Washington’s political leadership. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) criticized the administration’s approach, arguing that it avoids the constitutional requirement of advice and consent. This administration doesn’t want to deal with advice and consent—they just want to install cronies to carry out a corrupt political agenda,
Murray said in a statement reported by NBC News.
This follows our earlier report, Trump Fires FTC Democrat Commissioner Despite Federal Law.
Despite the immediate termination, Rogoff expressed pride in the support he received from the local judiciary. The fact that the judges of this district — most of whom I’ve spent my career appearing in front of, or trying cases against, or working with — believed that I was the right person to do this work is just really humbling and amazing,
he said. He described the role of U.S. Attorney as the best job there is
for a prosecutor.
Find more reporting in our News section.