Seattle U.S. Attorney Sues Trump After 54‑Minute Tenure Was Cut Short

When Roger Rogoff swore the oath of office last week, he probably imagined a few weeks of settling in – not a half‑hour of paperwork followed by a termination notice from the White House. Yet that’s exactly what happened. After being chosen unanimously by a panel of federal judges to fill a long‑standing vacancy in Seattle, the former state judge learned that President Donald Trump had fired him.

Rogoff’s attorneys wasted no time. On Tuesday they filed a complaint in federal court naming Trump, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and the Justice Department as defendants. The lawsuit asks a judge to declare the dismissal unlawful and to let Rogoff stay on the job until a permanent U.S. attorney is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Under the law, a district court can indeed appoint a temporary U.S. attorney when a vacancy drags on. The statutes also say that if the court’s appointee is removed without the president’s support, that action may run afoul of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Rogoff’s counsel, Jason A. Rittereiser, argues that the firing “undermines Congress’s constitutionally enumerated power” and that the president overstepped his authority.

The Justice Department, for its part, brushed off the challenge. A spokesperson noted that the district court failed to coordinate with DOJ on the appointment, and reiterated that the president has the right to remove anyone he deems appropriate. Blanche, posting on X, reminded readers that “the POTUS can fire them,” underscoring the administration’s stance that the president’s dismissal power is absolute.

This isn’t the first time Trump’s team has clashed with judges over temporary prosecutors. Earlier this year, James Hundley was appointed by a panel after a judge declared the acting U.S. attorney in Virginia unlawful; Hundley was then fired within hours of taking the oath. Similar drama unfolded in New York, where Donald Kinsella was removed after a federal judge ruled his appointment invalid. Those incidents illustrate a growing pattern of tension between the executive branch and the judiciary over who gets to run the nation’s federal prosecutors.

Rogoff’s case could become a bellwether. If the court sides with him, it would reinforce the limited but real check that district courts have on presidential power in the interim‑appointment process. If the administration prevails, it may further erode the collaborative norm that has long existed between judges and the Justice Department when filling these crucial roles.

For now, the Seattle legal community watches closely, waiting to see whether a 54‑minute tenure will become a precedent‑setting lawsuit or simply another footnote in an administration that has not shied away from bold personnel moves.