Roger Rogoff was sworn in as U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington and was fired by the Trump administration 54 minutes later. He is now asking a court to say the removal was unlawful.
The lawsuit turns a routine vacancy into an immediate test of presidential power. Rogoff had been appointed last week by a unanimous panel of district court judges, and his filing makes him the first to challenge one of a string of dismissals in New Jersey, New York and Virginia.
Rogoff, a former state judge who spent 20 years as a state prosecutor and six years as a federal prosecutor, says the law gave him more than a brief placeholder role. In his view, the Justice Department could name an interim U.S. attorney for 120 days, but after that period the district court could keep the office filled until a permanent successor was approved by the Senate. That is why he argues he could not be removed before a Senate-confirmed replacement took office.
The Justice Department says otherwise. A spokesperson said the district court did not coordinate with DOJ on the selection and said the firing was wholly within the President's authority. That clash goes to the heart of the case: whether a court-appointed U.S. attorney serves at the president's pleasure from the moment of swearing-in, or whether the vacancy rules keep that office in place until the Senate finishes the job.
Rogoff knew the risk when he accepted the post and still took what he called “the best job there is.” That detail matters because it shows this was never a quiet personnel dispute. It was a legal challenge launched the same day the removal happened, with the courts now being asked to decide how far the Trump administration can go in replacing a prosecutor chosen by judges rather than by the White House.
The broader backdrop is not subtle. The Supreme Court's latest rulings include Trump v. Slaughter, which affirmed the president's power to dismiss a Federal Trade Commission commissioner, and Trump v. Cook, which said the president cannot unilaterally fire a Federal Reserve governor. Rogoff's case sits between those two ideas and asks where a court-appointed U.S. attorney fits. The next step is a judicial ruling on whether his removal can stand under the statute he cites, and that answer will decide whether the office can be cleared out this quickly again.
