Trump Administration Fires Newly Appointed U.S. Attorney in Seattle Minutes After His Judicial Appointment

SEATTLE — The Trump administration fired a federal prosecutor Wednesday less than an hour after he had been appointed to lead the United States attorney's office in Seattle, a move that sets up a potential legal battle over the president's authority to remove prosecutors chosen by the judiciary.

Federal judges in the Western District of Washington had unanimously selected Roger Rogoff to serve as the Justice Department's top official in the district, filling a vacancy the administration had left unaddressed. But the Trump administration has repeatedly resisted efforts by federal judges to fill such vacancies on their own, and Rogoff was dismissed by email roughly 54 minutes after his appointment.

Rogoff, 57, has retained an employment law firm and is now weighing whether to challenge his removal in court, a step that would mark a departure from how other prosecutors dismissed under similar circumstances have responded. Legal experts say such a challenge would likely lead to a lengthy and difficult court fight and could raise the unusual possibility of a U.S. attorney operating independently of the administration that removed him. It could also complicate the position of Charles Neil Floyd, the Trump administration's preferred pick to lead the office, whose appointment as first assistant United States attorney has never been formally submitted to the Senate for confirmation.

Rogoff told The New York Times he had envisioned the role as one focused on implementing the administration's stated law enforcement priorities, describing goals such as prosecuting illegal immigration, human trafficking and drug gang activity as fairly conventional. But he was sharply critical of the administration's broader approach to filling top prosecutor positions without Senate involvement. He said that when officials are placed into such roles through what he described as an improvised process, it undermines the functioning of individual offices, and he argued the practice also raises constitutional concerns.

In response, the Justice Department said in a statement that the district court had not coordinated with the department on Rogoff's selection. The agency also pointed to a letter that acting Attorney General Todd Blanche sent to The Times earlier this year, in which he wrote that when judges act unilaterally in selecting prosecutors, the outcome tends to be straightforward: a prosecutor chosen solely by the judiciary will not remain in the position.

The standoff has been building since January, when federal judges in Washington state launched a public search process to fill the vacancy, going so far as to ask applicants how they would respond if the administration moved to fire them. Rogoff recalled telling the judges he would consider pursuing a legal challenge if that happened.

The dispute has become a source of ongoing frustration for state officials. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, a Democrat who previously served as U.S. attorney in Seattle himself, described the administration's approach to the vacancy as unlawful in an interview last fall, comparing the shifting arrangement of acting officials and first assistants to a plot device from the film "Casino," in which a character's title was repeatedly changed to make it harder for regulators to track what was happening.

Rogoff brings a varied background to the dispute. In addition to his legal career, he has worked for Microsoft, and he was most recently appointed by former Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, to lead a state office responsible for investigating the use of deadly force by police. His appointment to the U.S. attorney post came from the full panel of federal district judges in Seattle and Tacoma, a group of 17 judges that included ten appointed by Democratic presidents and seven appointed by Republican presidents.

Any lawsuit stemming from Rogoff's firing would likely involve prolonged legal proceedings, and it remains unclear whether the administration would ultimately seek to bring such a dispute before the Supreme Court. A similar standoff arose last year in New Jersey, when a federal judge ruled that Alina Habba, a former personal lawyer for President Trump, was not lawfully serving as U.S. attorney there. The administration at the time threatened to escalate that fight to the Supreme Court but ultimately did not follow through.

Not every such dispute has ended in conflict. After three of Habba's successors in New Jersey were also found to be leading that office unlawfully, judges in the district worked directly with the Justice Department to appoint Robert Frazer as the district's top prosecutor, an outcome reached through cooperation rather than confrontation.

Under federal law, permanent U.S. attorney appointments typically require approval either from the Senate or from federal judges in the relevant district when a vacancy persists. Interim appointments made without formal approval are limited to 120 days, but the Trump administration has repeatedly extended its preferred officials' tenures by designating them acting U.S. attorneys or leaving them in place as first assistants, a practice that has drawn criticism from judges and state officials in multiple districts.

Legal scholars say any court challenge to Rogoff's dismissal would face significant hurdles. Elizabeth G. Porter, a law professor at the University of Washington, noted in an email earlier this year that federal statute empowers district courts to appoint a temporary U.S. attorney to serve until a traditional appointee is in place, language that could theoretically be read to protect such an appointee from removal without cause. But she cautioned that this would be a difficult legal argument to sustain in court.

The dispute in Seattle adds to a growing list of standoffs between the Trump administration and federal courts over control of vacant U.S. attorney positions across the country, with judges in several districts pushing back against the administration's reliance on acting officials and first assistants to sidestep the Senate confirmation process. Whether Rogoff pursues a formal legal challenge could determine if the Seattle case becomes the next flashpoint in that broader fight, potentially testing, in court, the extent of a president's authority to remove a prosecutor chosen entirely by the judicial branch.