In a swift turn of events, the recently appointed U.S. attorney for Seattle, Roger Rogoff, was dismissed by President Donald Trump just one hour after his appointment. This unexpected move underscores ongoing tensions between the judiciary and the executive branch regarding the appointment of federal prosecutors.
Rogoff, who has a significant history as a judge and prosecutor, was appointed by a unanimous decision of 17 federal judges in Seattle. Shortly after his swearing-in, he was informed of his removal via email from the Trump administration. Rogoff is currently consulting with legal advisors about the possibility of contesting his dismissal.
Typically, U.S. attorneys are appointed by the president and must be confirmed by the Senate unless temporarily appointed. However, the Trump administration has been known to employ unconventional strategies to keep interim prosecutors in office indefinitely, bypassing Senate confirmation.
Controversial Appointment Practices
Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche remarked on social media that while district court judges can appoint temporary U.S. attorneys, it is within the president’s power to dismiss them. He criticized the judges for not consulting the administration, implying that such consultation ensures that appointees are qualified for the administration’s needs.
Charles Neil Floyd, initially appointed by Trump as interim U.S. attorney, was never formally nominated to the Senate. Once his term expired, Floyd’s title was changed to first assistant U.S. attorney as a workaround to keep him in office without a confirmed successor.
This tactic has not gone unnoticed by the courts. In May, a U.S. appeals court questioned the legality of such maneuvers, prompting Seattle’s federal judges to seek applications for the U.S. attorney position, eventually appointing Rogoff.
Despite bipartisan support from the judges, Rogoff’s appointment was swiftly negated. Washington U.S. Senator Patty Murray, an opponent of Floyd’s appointment, criticized the firing, stating, “This administration doesn’t want to deal with advice and consent—they just want to install cronies to carry out a corrupt political agenda.”
Legal Challenges and Precedents
This incident is not isolated. Similar situations have arisen in other states, such as New Jersey and Virginia, where court-appointed U.S. attorneys were dismissed after their appointments were deemed unlawful. For instance, Alina Habba resigned as New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor after an appeals court ruling, and Lindsey Halligan stepped down in Virginia under similar circumstances.
James Hundley, appointed by judges in Virginia, was also dismissed by the administration, as was a court-appointed U.S. attorney in northern New York. These actions reflect an ongoing pattern of the administration asserting its influence over federal prosecutor appointments.
Despite knowing the potential for immediate dismissal, Rogoff accepted the appointment, describing the role of U.S. attorney as “the best job there is” for a prosecutor. Reflecting on his career, he remarked, “The fact that the judges of this district… believed that I was the right person to do this work is just really humbling and amazing.”
