Roger Rogoff walked into the federal prosecutor's office in downtown Seattle on Wednesday morning as the newly sworn-in U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington. He never got a meeting. Before he could sit down with the outgoing first assistant, an email landed: President Trump had fired him. The entire tenure lasted less than an hour.
The dismissal, 54 minutes by the Washington Examiner's count, sets up yet another legal confrontation between the Trump administration and federal judges over who controls U.S. attorney posts when the White House declines to send nominees to the Senate.
And it raises a pointed question that the administration's critics would rather not answer honestly: If the president has the constitutional authority to remove a federal prosecutor, does it matter whether the swearing-in happened an hour ago or a year ago?
Rogoff, a former King County Superior Court judge and veteran state and federal prosecutor, was sworn in Wednesday morning at the federal courthouse in downtown Seattle. All 17 active and senior federal judges in the Western District of Washington, appointed by five presidents, including seven by Republicans, as Fox News reported, had unanimously selected him for the post.
The appointment followed the expiration of a 120-day interim term served by Charles Neil Floyd, a former immigration judge whom the Trump administration had kept on as first assistant U.S. attorney. Federal law allows district courts to appoint a temporary U.S. attorney when that interim window closes without a Senate-confirmed nominee in place.
Trump never formally submitted Floyd's nomination to the Senate. Instead, the administration shifted Floyd to the first assistant title, a personnel maneuver that the Associated Press described as part of a broader pattern of circumventing appointment rules when interim terms expire.
After his swearing-in, Rogoff went to the federal prosecutor's office to request a meeting with Floyd. While he waited in the lobby, the termination email arrived.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche confirmed the move Wednesday evening in a post on X, writing while he was testifying before the Senate. His statement was direct, as the New York Post reported:
"District court judges can appoint a temporary U.S. Attorney, and POTUS can fire them. WDWA judges abandoned the time-honored process of consultation with the administration so that the selected U.S. Attorney is qualified to serve in the administration. Roger Rogoff has been fired by the President."
That framing matters. Blanche did not dispute the judges' legal authority to appoint Rogoff. He argued they bypassed the customary consultation process, a tradition in which courts coordinate with the executive branch to ensure the selected attorney can work within the administration's priorities.
The administration's position, stripped to its core, is straightforward: the president retains removal authority over U.S. attorneys regardless of how they were appointed. District court judges can fill the seat. The president can empty it.
The Trump Justice Department has not been shy about asserting its authority across a range of fronts, and this episode fits squarely within that pattern.
Rogoff told the Associated Press in a phone interview Wednesday that he was proud of his career and humbled by the judges' confidence in him:
"I'm really proud of my career. 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 was considering legal action. Breitbart reported that Rogoff has retained an employment law firm to discuss his options. In a separate comment, Rogoff went further, calling the situation unconstitutional and damaging to the Justice Department's credibility:
"The ability for the work to be respected and to be credible with judges and defense attorneys and victims and defendants is hurt. So it's just not a way to run an office, and, by the way, it's also unconstitutional."
Rogoff also offered a broader critique of the administration's approach. Fox News quoted him saying: "I don't think it's the way to run the Department of Justice. When you have this sort of made up way of putting people in these positions, the process breaks down."
Whether or not Rogoff has a viable legal claim, his description of the process "breaking down" applies in both directions. The administration would argue the process broke down when 17 judges installed a prosecutor without consulting the executive branch.
Sen. Patty Murray, the Washington Democrat, issued a statement framing the firing as evidence of corruption:
"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. 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's complaint about "advice and consent" is worth examining. The entire reason federal judges appointed Rogoff is that the normal Senate confirmation process had not produced a nominee. The administration chose not to send Floyd's name to the Senate. The judges stepped in under a statutory fallback provision. Now Murray objects that the president exercised his own constitutional authority in response.
The deeper tension here is institutional, not personal. The internal politics of the Justice Department under Blanche have been contentious for months. The administration has made clear it intends to control who runs federal prosecution offices, not leave those decisions to judges in districts that lean heavily Democratic.
The Seattle firing is not an isolated event. The Trump administration has clashed with federal courts over U.S. attorney appointments in at least three other districts.
In New Jersey, Alina Habba served as acting U.S. attorney beginning in July 2025. An appeals court later ruled she had been serving unlawfully, and she resigned in December. In the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan left her interim post in January after a judge concluded her appointment by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi was unlawful. That ruling also led to the dismissal of indictments Halligan had secured against New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey.
In the Northern District of New York, judges rejected John Sarcone's attempt to make his court appointment permanent. He remains as first assistant U.S. attorney.
The pattern is consistent. The administration installs its preferred personnel. Courts push back. The administration reasserts control. The cycle repeats. Each round produces more litigation, more uncertainty, and more vacancies at the top of federal prosecution offices.
The broader conflict between the DOJ and institutions resistant to the administration's direction has been a defining feature of Trump's second term. The U.S. attorney fights are one front in a wider struggle over who actually runs federal law enforcement.
At the center of all these disputes sits an unresolved legal question: Can the president fire a U.S. attorney appointed by federal judges under the statutory fallback provision?
Blanche says yes. Rogoff says it's unconstitutional. Neither side has a definitive court ruling to point to, at least not one that squarely addresses this specific mechanism.
The Supreme Court recently upheld the firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, reinforcing broad presidential removal authority over executive branch officials. But whether that principle extends cleanly to court-appointed interim prosecutors is a question the justices have not directly answered.
Rogoff's threat of legal action could force the issue. If he files suit, a federal court would have to decide whether the statutory appointment power carries any protection against presidential removal, or whether the president's authority over the executive branch is simply paramount.
The administration appears confident it holds the stronger hand. And on the merits, the argument is not unreasonable: U.S. attorneys are executive branch officials who serve at the pleasure of the president. The method of their appointment does not change the nature of their office.
The DOJ's willingness to act aggressively in other areas suggests the administration is not bluffing. It fired Rogoff in under an hour. That was not an accident or a bureaucratic mix-up. It was a message.
Several questions remain unanswered. Has Rogoff formally initiated legal proceedings, or is he still in the consultation phase? What is Floyd's current status, does he resume day-to-day control of the office? And will the 17 judges who unanimously appointed Rogoff respond publicly or take further judicial action?
The administration has shown it will not tolerate federal judges filling U.S. attorney vacancies with candidates the White House did not select. The judges, for their part, have shown they will use the statutory tools available to them when the administration leaves positions empty.
Something has to give. Either the courts will establish that judge-appointed prosecutors carry some insulation from presidential removal, or the administration's position, that the president can fire any U.S. attorney, full stop, will become the settled rule.
Until then, the Trump DOJ's enforcement posture leaves little doubt about where the executive branch stands. It intends to run federal prosecution offices with people it chose, through a process it controls.
Roger Rogoff held the title of U.S. attorney for less time than most people spend in a morning meeting. If that bothers the judges who appointed him, they might consider picking up the phone next time before picking the prosecutor.
