What happened to Roger Rogoff on a Wednesday in Seattle last month has an almost cinematic quality. He was unanimously chosen by a panel of federal judges to serve as U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington, a post that had been empty and without a leader for over three years. He took the oath of office. The formalities were followed. Then, less than an hour later, he received an email from the President’s Executive Office notifying him of his termination.
54 minutes spent working. That might be a record, but it’s not the kind that anyone intends to set.
Rogoff, a federal prosecutor with over thirty years of public service, was not amused by his dismissal. The legal arguments at the heart of his lawsuit against the Trump administration are more substantial than the attention-grabbing circumstances may indicate. This is more than one man challenging a hiring decision. The case touches on deeper issues, such as the boundaries of presidential removal authority, the role Congress has established for federal courts in filling prosecutorial vacancies, and the consequences of the executive branch’s repeated circumvention of the Senate confirmation process.
This controversy revolves around a fairly specific statute. A temporary U.S. attorney may be appointed by the attorney general for a period of 120 days under federal law. The district court now has the authority to appoint someone to serve until the Senate confirms a permanent replacement after that window closes. When the judges of the Western District of Washington selected Rogoff, they did precisely that. With some textual force, his attorneys contend that enabling the president to fire anyone appointed by a district court right away would essentially nullify laws passed by Congress. If the White House can eliminate judicial appointment authority with a single email, what good is it?
The district judges were publicly accused by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who was named as a defendant in the lawsuit, of not consulting the administration prior to selecting Rogoff. This accusation may speak more about expectations than it does about legal requirements. Generally speaking, courts are not required to approve their appointments with the president.
It’s worth taking a step back to comprehend the contents of the Roger Rogoff lawsuit. In at least seven districts nationwide, Trump has tried similar tactics, circumventing court decisions by granting loyalist prosecutors different titles while they continue to serve as de facto U.S. attorneys. These arrangements have repeatedly been declared illegal by courts. By losing individual moves but remaining on the board, the administration has effectively been playing procedural chess. Rogoff’s case is significant outside of the Western District of Washington because he is the first court-appointed U.S. attorney to actually file a lawsuit over being fired.
Additionally, legal observers appear to be genuinely unsure about a constitutional aspect. Congress may appoint “inferior officers” to courts of law under the Appointments Clause. Rogoff’s attorneys contend that removal authority must logically follow, meaning that if courts have the authority to make appointments, the president cannot simply revoke those appointments whenever they become problematic. It remains to be seen if courts will concur. This case is clouded by the Supreme Court’s June ruling extending executive authority over federal agencies.
After thirty years of public service, Rogoff himself stated in an email to reporters that he believes in the rule of law and that something is wrong with the system when an administration purposefully avoids Senate confirmation and then fires anyone the judiciary appoints to fill the vacancy. It’s not a radical observation. Regardless of their political stance, the majority of former prosecutors likely hold this belief.
Beyond Seattle, the outcome of this lawsuit will be significant. Rogoff’s victory would make Trump’s larger plan to retain preferred prosecutors without Senate confirmation more difficult. If he loses, it suggests that the president’s removal authority may go beyond what Congress ever intended. The legal landscape that American lawyers work in is altered by either result, subtly but significantly.
