A U.S. attorney in Washington State who was abruptly dismissed by the Trump administration has filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of his termination, marking a first-of-its-kind legal confrontation with the Justice Department over presidential authority.
Roger Rogoff, appointed last week by a unanimous panel of district court judges after the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington had been vacant for several months, was fired less than an hour after his appointment. His lawsuit contends that President Donald Trump lacks the authority to remove U.S. attorneys who are appointed by judges in the absence of Senate-confirmed nominees, despite several such firings during the president’s second term.
Under federal law, U.S. attorneys can be appointed either through presidential nomination confirmed by the Senate or, if the position is vacant, by a panel of district judges. The Trump administration has resisted making permanent appointments and has asserted control over the Justice Department’s leadership, often dismissing judicially appointed prosecutors if their selection was not coordinated with the department.
Rogoff’s legal argument asserts that the Constitution and federal statutes grant Congress a role in regulating the appointment and tenure of executive branch officials, including U.S. attorneys. His lawyers maintain that those appointed by judges are entitled to serve until a Senate-approved nominee is confirmed, thus limiting the president’s power to circumvent the traditional confirmation process.
Legal experts note that Rogoff faces a significant challenge as presidents historically possess wide authority to dismiss executive branch officials. This power was reinforced recently by a Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the president’s right to remove agency heads, even from independent agencies. Elizabeth G. Porter, a law professor at the University of Washington, described the case as a difficult one in the current judicial environment but acknowledged that Rogoff’s claims raise important constitutional questions.
The Justice Department defended the firing, stating that the judges did not consult with the department before appointing Rogoff, and affirmed that the president acted within his authority. This stance aligns with the administration’s previous actions, including the immediate dismissal of Desiree Leigh Grace in New Jersey after a similar judicial appointment in July 2025. Subsequent acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has insisted that judicially appointed U.S. attorneys only remain in office with department approval, leading to similar removals in New York and Virginia.
While the administration is entitled to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for up to 120 days, it has occasionally allowed non-confirmed officials to continue in senior roles like first assistant after that period. Notably, in New Jersey, a judicial appointment was accepted after direct negotiations between district judges and the Justice Department, in what Blanche termed a “time-honored process.”
Rogoff, 57, holds a law degree from the University of Washington and has an extensive career as both a prosecutor and a judge, including service on the King County Superior Court in Seattle. His lawsuit is expected to initiate a contentious legal battle over the balance of power between the presidency, the judiciary, and the Justice Department concerning appointments and dismissals within the federal prosecutorial system.