A federal judge in Seattle has issued an order overturning President Donald Trump’s decision to fire Roger Rogoff, the court-appointed U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington. The ruling effectively reinstates Rogoff just hours after a Department of Justice memo sought his immediate removal, setting the stage for a constitutional confrontation over the limits of executive power.
The conflict began on Tuesday when all 17 active and senior judges of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington unanimously selected Rogoff to lead the office. The judges acted under 28 U.S.C. § 546(d), a federal statute that allows a district court to appoint a U.S. Attorney if a vacancy remains unfilled for more than 120 days. Approximately one hour after Rogoff was sworn into office, the White House ordered his dismissal via a midday memo from the Department of Justice.
U.S. District Judge Richard Jones issued a stay against the firing, ruling that the President’s traditional authority to remove federal prosecutors at will is limited in this specific statutory context. According to Jones, the language of Section 546(d) dictates that a court-appointed prosecutor serves “until the vacancy is filled” by a nominee who has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
The Constitutional Conflict over Article II
Judge Jones ruled that the President’s removal power is limited in this instance because the statute states the appointee serves “until the vacancy is filled” by a Senate-confirmed nominee.
The White House had intended to install a hand-picked interim appointee to the position, a move that would have bypassed the local judges’ unanimous selection.
Rogoff’s Tenure and Previous Service
Rogoff is a veteran of the Seattle legal community, having previously served as a King County Superior Court judge and as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the same district he was chosen to lead. His appointment was intended to provide stability to an office that has lacked a Senate-confirmed leader for several years.
The ruling overturning the removal has created an immediate procedural question regarding the validity of legal filings made by the office.
The case could move toward a higher court to resolve whether the “until the vacancy is filled” clause in federal law acts as a statutory check on the President’s removal power. Currently, Rogoff remains the U.S. Attorney for the district.
