Seattle U.S. Attorney Roger Rogoff Takes Legal Action After Sudden Trump‑Ordered Dismissal

When Roger Rogoff walked into his Seattle office on the morning of July 17, 2026, he probably didn’t expect to be packing up his desk by the end of the week. Yet, just a few days later, the former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington found himself at the center of a courtroom drama, filing a lawsuit that pits a federal prosecutor against a former president.

Rogoff’s appointment was a bit unusual to begin with – a panel of district judges selected him, bypassing the usual presidential nomination route. That arrangement, under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, is meant to keep the federal judiciary’s voice in a critical local role. But on July 17, President Donald Trump, via Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, ordered his immediate removal.

In a pleading filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Rogoff argues the firing was “unlawful” and that the President simply can’t nullify the court’s appointment power. He leans on both constitutional authority and 28 U.S.C. § 546, which says a Department of Justice interim U.S. Attorney can serve for up to 120 days before judges step in to appoint a temporary replacement.

The Department of Justice, for its part, brushed off the challenge. A DOJ spokesperson said the dismissal was “wholly within the President’s authority,” a line the agency has used in other similar firings. Still, Rogoff isn’t just asking to get his job back; he wants a court declaration that the dismissal violated the law, and he’s asking for reinstatement while the case drags on.

Rogoff’s case isn’t without precedent. A recent 3rd Circuit decision involving former Trump‑era personal‑defense lawyer Alina Habba held that she had overstayed her term after a court‑appointed interim appointment expired. That ruling, while not identical, provides a backdrop for Rogoff’s constitutional argument.

At the heart of the dispute lies a broader question: how far does a president’s removal power extend when a U.S. Attorney has been appointed by a district court rather than the White House? The answer could reshape the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary, at least as far as federal prosecutors are concerned.

For now, the case is just getting under way. The complaint, which you can read in full via the court’s docket, lays out Rogoff’s legal footing in detail. Whether a judge will side with a career prosecutor against a former president remains to be seen, but the courtroom drama is already prompting a fresh look at appointment rules that many assumed were settled.