Roger Rogoff was sworn in as U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington on Friday afternoon. Fifty-four minutes later, he was fired by the Trump administration. Now Rogoff is fighting back with what his legal team says is the first lawsuit of its kind, challenging whether the president has authority to dismiss a court-appointed federal prosecutor before a Senate-confirmed successor takes office.
Rogoff's appointment came after a panel of district court judges — including both Democratic and Republican appointees — unanimously selected him to fill the vacancy left by his predecessor's departure. The White House referred questions to the Department of Justice, which defended the dismissal as within presidential authority. Rogoff filed suit in federal court alleging the administration exceeded its legal power.
What the Left Is Saying
Democratic lawmakers and legal advocates have rallied behind Rogoff, arguing the case represents a critical test of whether presidents can sidestep Senate confirmation requirements by simply removing prosecutors they disfavor. Several Democratic attorneys general have filed amicus briefs supporting Rogoff's position.
Senator Patty Murray of Washington State said in a statement that the firing "undermines the independence of our federal courts and allows the executive branch to pick and choose which laws get enforced based on political loyalty rather than qualifications."
Civil liberties groups argue that if presidents can remove court-appointed U.S. attorneys at will, it would effectively nullify protections built into the law designed to ensure continuity in federal prosecutions. The American Constitution Society said the administration was attempting to "rewrite decades of settled practice" through executive fiat.
Rogoff himself argued in his complaint that allowing immediate removal of court-selected prosecutors would let any administration indefinitely circumvent Senate confirmation — potentially leaving districts without permanent leadership for years.
What the Right Is Saying
Administration officials and conservative legal scholars counter that Article II of the Constitution grants presidents broad authority to remove executive branch officers, including U.S. attorneys who serve as the face of the Department of Justice in their districts.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche wrote on social media that "POTUS can fire them" when district courts appoint temporary U.S. attorneys without consulting the administration. He added that judges in the Western District of Washington "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 DOJ spokesperson told Fox News Digital: "Consistent with other firings of this type, this is wholly within the President's authority." The department has pointed to Supreme Court precedent upholding presidential removal power over executive officers.
Heritage Foundation legal scholars argued that Rogoff's interpretation of federal statute misreads the law. They contend courts appoint interim prosecutors only as a stopgap measure while the Senate confirmation process moves forward — not as permanent officials beyond executive reach.
What the Numbers Show
The Western District of Washington is one of 93 U.S. attorney districts nationwide. Each district typically handles hundreds of criminal cases annually and manages civil litigation involving the federal government.
Rogoff's tenure lasted 54 minutes, making it among the shortest any U.S. attorney has served before dismissal under any administration. The Trump administration has now removed court-appointed prosecutors in at least four jurisdictions — New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and Washington — within their first weeks or months in office.
Federal law allows DOJ to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for 120 days without Senate confirmation. After that period expires, district courts may appoint replacements "until the vacancy is filled" under 28 U.S.C. § 546. The question before the court is whether "filled" means any appointment or specifically requires Senate confirmation.
The Bottom Line
The case is set for expedited briefing given its constitutional stakes and ongoing uncertainty in multiple districts where similar disputes could arise. A ruling in Rogoff's favor would constrain presidential removal authority over court-appointed prosecutors nationwide, potentially forcing administrations to work through Senate confirmation for every U.S. attorney vacancy or risk legal challenges.
A ruling against him would solidify executive control over federal prosecutions and likely accelerate the pace of such removals across all districts where new appointees lack White House support. The outcome could reshape the balance of power between the three branches in how federal prosecutors are selected and retained — a dynamic that affects every criminal and civil case brought in federal court.
The Justice Department has asked the court to dismiss the suit, arguing the case is moot since Rogoff no longer holds office.