BS BRIEF:
- President Trump removed Roger Rogoff less than an hour after federal judges in Seattle appointed and swore him in as U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington.
- Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche publicly defended the move, arguing that district judges bypassed the administration and ignored the traditional consultation process.
- Rogoff is reportedly exploring legal action, setting up what could become a major constitutional fight over presidential authority and court-appointed prosecutors.
The simmering war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary exploded into public view this week when President Trump fired Seattle prosecutor Roger Rogoff less than an hour after federal judges appointed him as U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington.
The move stunned legal observers, but it also reflected a growing frustration inside the administration over what officials view as activist courts attempting to seize authority that traditionally belongs to the executive branch.
Roger Rogoff, a former King County Superior Court judge and veteran prosecutor, was unanimously selected by the district’s federal judges Wednesday morning after the administration’s preferred candidate, Charles Neil Floyd, remained in legal limbo amid Senate confirmation delays. Rogoff was sworn in before 8 a.m. in Seattle. By the time he arrived at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, his tenure was effectively over.
According to multiple reports, Rogoff was sitting in the lobby waiting to meet Floyd when an email arrived informing him that President Trump had removed him from office.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche wasted no time explaining the administration’s position.
“District court judges can appoint a temporary U.S. Attorney, and POTUS can fire them,” Blanche wrote on X. He accused the judges of abandoning the “time-honored process of consultation with the administration” and concluded with a blunt declaration: “Roger Rogoff has been fired by the President.”
District court judges can appoint a temporary U.S. Attorney, and POTUS can fire them. WDWA judges abandoned the time-honored process of consultation with the administration so that the selected U.S. Attorney is qualified to serve in the administration.
Roger Rogoff has been…
— Acting AG Todd Blanche (@DAGToddBlanche) July 15, 2026
At the center of the dispute is a federal statute that allows judges to appoint a U.S. attorney when a vacancy remains unfilled after an interim appointment expires. The Western District of Washington had gone roughly three years without a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney, prompting judges to exercise that authority. The Trump administration, however, has argued that such appointments cannot override presidential control of executive branch officers.
The Seattle confrontation is hardly occurring in isolation.
Similar clashes have erupted in New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and other jurisdictions where courts have challenged the administration’s use of acting appointments and interim prosecutors. Those battles have become part of a broader tug-of-war between a White House determined to keep key law-enforcement positions aligned with its agenda and courts increasingly willing to intervene.
Rogoff, for his part, expressed frustration with the administration’s personnel strategy.
“I don’t think it’s the way to run the Department of Justice,” he told The New York Times, criticizing what he described as improvised appointment methods. According to reports, he has retained counsel and is considering legal action against the administration.
Washington Democrat Sen. Patty Murray immediately blasted the firing, claiming Rogoff had been lawfully appointed and accusing the administration of seeking political control over the office.
The administration sees the matter differently.
Trump officials have repeatedly argued that Senate obstruction cannot be allowed to paralyze the Justice Department and that federal prosecutors ultimately serve under the authority of a president elected by the American people, not by panels of district judges.
The legal questions raised by the Seattle showdown are likely headed for court. The political implications are already here.
My take …
The Constitution created a president. It did not create 17 federal judges in Seattle with the power to install their preferred prosecutor and then dare the White House to do something about it.
The funniest part of this whole episode may be the timing. The man barely had enough time to find the coffee machine.
Federal judges appointed him. He took the oath. He walked over to the office. He sat down in the lobby. An email arrived. Game over.
Some in the media are portraying this as a constitutional crisis. Washington Democrats are portraying it as an attack on democracy. The usual suspects are already warming up their outrage generators.
But from the administration’s perspective, federal prosecutors answer to the executive branch, not to judges looking for a workaround when they don’t like the president’s choice.
Seattle may be deep blue territory, but the White House just reminded everyone that elections still have consequences.
DBS WIRE SOURCES:
- Fox News — Trump admin fires US attorney in Seattle minutes after he was appointed
- Associated Press — Trump immediately fires the new court-appointed top prosecutor in Seattle
- Reuters — Trump fires judges’ pick for top federal prosecutor in Seattle
- New York Post — Trump admin fires new Seattle US attorney Roger Rogoff minutes after his swearing-in
- Bloomberg Law — White House rapidly fires Seattle judges’ US attorney appointment
- The Stranger (Seattle) — Western Washington federal judges appoint Roger Rogoff as new US attorney in Seattle
