President Donald Trump speaks in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House after an unspecified threat at the annual White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in Washington, Saturday, April 25, 2026, as acting Attorney General Todd Blanche looks on (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
A federal prosecutor in Washington state who was appointed to serve as U.S. attorney and then summarily fired by President Donald Trump several minutes later has filed a lawsuit challenging his removal.
Last week, a panel of district court judges unanimously appointed Roger Rogoff to lead the Western District of Washington. The jurists chose the longtime Seattle prosecutor to fill a vacancy that the 45th and 47th president had never addressed. In less than an hour, however, Trump sent an email and axed the judges' choice.
Now, in a 24-page complaint, attorneys for the plaintiff say the president's "purported firing" of their client "was unlawful."
The lawsuit alleges violations of federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
"The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington validly appointed Plaintiff Roger Rogoff as U.S. Attorney for this district pursuant to express statutory authority that Congress provided for filling vacancies," the lawsuit reads. "That statute is firmly rooted in, and designed to protect, Congress's Appointments Clause power to prescribe the method for filling inferior officer vacancies."
To hear Rogoff tell it, the statute allowing judges to fill vacancies is not a law the president can simply override — at least not by firing.
"Defendants' attempt to fire him cannot stand," the lawsuit reads.
Instead, the plaintiff says, the president's only recourse — once the judges on any given court speak and appoint — is to actually appoint a U.S. attorney by way of the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.
"Mr. Rogoff's purported firing contravenes the plain text," the lawsuit goes on. "[The statute] provides that Mr. Rogoff shall serve 'until the vacancy is filled' by a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney. But no person has yet been nominated, let alone confirmed, to fill the vacancy."
The interplay between the federal statute at issue and the Senate confirmation process aligns with the constitutional concept of checks and balances on the president's authority, the lawsuit argues.
From the original petition, at length:
The purported firing also violates the Constitution. The Appointments Clause authorizes Congress to decide how inferior officers are appointed, which it did by giving courts a role in designating interim U.S. Attorneys to incentivize the President to seek Senate advice and consent to fill vacancies. By purporting to fire Mr. Rogoff—and apparently committing to firing anyone else a district court appoints without "the support of POTUS"—the President has attempted to negate Congress's exercise of its constitutionally enumerated power.
The filing also argues that the Trump administration is explicitly violating the Appointments Clause by leaving Trump's preferred man in charge of the Evergreen State's Western District.
"Although [Charles Neil] Floyd is exercising all the authority of the U.S. Attorney—and, under Defendants' view, may do so indefinitely—his selection did not comply with the Appointments Clause (and the statutes that spring from it)," the complaint continues. "That state of affairs violates the Constitution and gravely undermines the separation-of-powers principles that the Appointments Clause is intended to protect."
While Trump has removed judicially appointed top prosecutors several times over, the government has continually had to deal with the fallout from the president's chosen prosecutors being unceremoniously stripped of their power and positions.
Such a chaotic state of affairs is likely to continue in the Western District should Trump get his way and keep Rogoff out of the position he was appointed to serve, the lawsuit claims.
"U.S. Attorneys have a statutory duty to prosecute all federal offenses within the district and to prosecute and defend, for the federal government, all civil actions in which the United States is concerned," the lawsuit goes on. "By preventing Mr. Rogoff from fulfilling the duties lawfully entrusted to him, Defendants' actions are causing immediate and severe harm to Mr. Rogoff and the public interest."
The plaintiff is seeking an injunction returning prosecutorial powers and duties to him and barring the Trump administration from impeding him "from accessing any of the benefits or resources of his position."
Comments