The Roger Rogoff lawsuit turns a fast-moving fight over U.S. attorney appointments into a separation-of-powers case. Federal judges in the Western District of Washington unanimously appointed Rogoff as the Justice Department’s top official for that district, according to The New York Times. The Trump administration dismissed him by email 54 minutes later.
Rogoff filed suit Tuesday, arguing that President Donald Trump had no lawful authority to remove a U.S. attorney appointed by federal judges under the statutory process Congress created for vacancies. The complaint also says Rogoff was denied due process.
The vacancy existed because Trump had not filled the post through the regular nomination process, according to the Times. That process is not exotic: the president nominates a U.S. attorney, the Senate decides whether to confirm the nominee, and an interim appointee may serve for 120 days. If the administration does not secure a confirmed nominee in that window, federal judges may appoint someone to serve until a confirmed U.S. attorney takes office.
That is the mechanism Rogoff says Trump tried to override. His complaint alleges that “by purporting to fire Mr. Rogoff” and appearing to commit to firing any district-court appointee who lacks “the support of POTUS,” the president attempted to wipe out Congress’s chosen vacancy process.
Can Trump fire a court-appointed U.S. attorney?
That is the legal question Rogoff is putting before the court. His position is that a president cannot remove a judicially appointed U.S. attorney because Congress gave courts a specific role once the executive branch fails to complete the nomination-and-confirmation route.
The Trump administration’s contrary position is reflected in its action: it treated Rogoff as removable almost immediately after the judges appointed him. The available record described by the Times does not include a Senate-confirmed replacement ready to take over the Western District of Washington post.
The dispute is part of a pattern reported by the Times and other outlets: the administration has resisted judicial appointments to U.S. attorney vacancies after letting interim periods run out. In an earlier instance covered by Techdirt, Trump fired a court-appointed U.S. attorney within about five hours after courts replaced an administration-backed pick whose tenure had become legally contested.
The practical stakes are plain. U.S. attorneys run federal prosecutions in their districts. If an administration can leave seats unconfirmed, install temporary favorites, and then fire every court-appointed successor, the 120-day limit becomes decorative. Rogoff’s lawsuit argues that Congress wrote the court-appointment backstop to prevent exactly that kind of vacancy limbo.
The case does not resolve who ultimately should lead the Western District of Washington. It asks whether Trump can nullify the judiciary’s statutory appointment once his own administration has not produced a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney. Until a court answers that, the district’s leadership fight remains less about Rogoff personally than about whether the vacancy statute has teeth.
This story draws on original reporting from Techdirt.
