White House Fires Court Appointed U.S. Attorney Just 54 Minutes After Swearing In, Setting Up Major Constitutional Showdown
The Trump administration has ignited a new constitutional battle over the separation of powers after firing a federally appointed U.S. attorney less than an hour after he was sworn into office, escalating an increasingly bitter fight between the executive branch and the federal judiciary over who controls vacant U.S. Attorney’s offices across the country.
The extraordinary episode unfolded Friday morning in Seattle, where veteran prosecutor and former judge Roger Rogoff officially became the court appointed U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington, only to be dismissed by President Donald Trump 54 minutes later.
The incident is the latest chapter in a growing national dispute over the administration’s use of interim appointments and the authority of federal judges to fill vacancies when Senate confirmed nominees have not been approved.
A 54 Minute Tenure
Rogoff’s appointment followed a unanimous vote by all 17 active and senior judges of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
At approximately 7:40 a.m., Rogoff was sworn into office after being selected through a bipartisan judicial process. His résumé includes decades as both a state and federal prosecutor, service as a King County Superior Court judge, and leadership of Washington state’s Office of Independent Investigations.
Less than an hour later, while waiting in the courthouse lobby to meet outgoing office leadership, Rogoff received an email titled “A Message From the President.” The message informed him that, under presidential authority, he had been removed from office. Asked afterward what it felt like to hold the position for less than an hour, Rogoff responded with characteristic humor.
“It was the greatest hour of my life.”
Despite the lighthearted response, the dismissal immediately transformed what had been a routine judicial appointment into a potentially landmark constitutional dispute.
The Legal Fight Centers on a Little Known Federal Law
At the heart of the conflict is 28 U.S.C. § 546, a federal statute governing how vacancies in U.S. Attorney offices are filled. Normally, U.S. Attorneys are nominated by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. When a vacancy exists, however, the Attorney General may appoint an interim U.S. Attorney, but only for a maximum of 120 days.
If that period expires without Senate confirmation of a permanent replacement, the statute gives local federal district judges the authority to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney who serves until the vacancy is legally filled. That judicial appointment power exists specifically to prevent prolonged vacancies and ensure federal prosecutions continue uninterrupted.
The Administration’s Strategy
Critics argue the administration has attempted to sidestep both the Senate confirmation process and judicial appointment authority. According to court filings and public statements surrounding similar disputes nationwide, several politically aligned interim U.S. Attorneys were initially appointed under the Attorney General’s 120 day authority.
Rather than seeking Senate confirmation before those appointments expired, the administration allegedly reassigned those officials to the position of First Assistant U.S. Attorney, while leaving the office of U.S. Attorney officially vacant. Although no longer formally serving as U.S. Attorney, the First Assistant can function as the acting head of the office.
Opponents argue the arrangement effectively allows the administration to maintain indefinite control without Senate approval, undermining both congressional intent and the vacancy statute. The Western District of Washington judges concluded the statutory clock had expired and exercised what they viewed as their clear authority under federal law to appoint Rogoff.
White House Defends Presidential Authority
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche quickly defended the president’s decision, arguing that although district judges may appoint temporary U.S. Attorneys, the president retains constitutional authority to remove executive branch officials. Writing publicly after Rogoff’s dismissal, Blanche stated:
“District court judges can appoint a temporary U.S. Attorney, and POTUS can fire them. Western District of Washington 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 fired by the President.”
The administration maintains that federal prosecutors ultimately serve within the executive branch and therefore remain subject to presidential removal authority.
Critics Call It an Assault on Checks and Balances
Opponents see the matter very differently. Washington Senator Patty Murray condemned the firing as an attempt to bypass constitutional safeguards and Senate oversight, arguing the administration is installing loyal political allies instead of allowing career prosecutors or Senate-confirmed nominees to lead federal law enforcement offices.
Legal scholars have similarly warned that repeatedly cycling officials between interim and acting positions could undermine Congress’s carefully crafted confirmation process. The dispute has become another flashpoint in the broader debate over the balance of power between the executive branch, Congress, and the federal courts.
Similar Battles Are Emerging Nationwide
Seattle is not an isolated case. Federal courts in Eastern Virginia and Northern New York have also become involved in disputes over interim U.S. Attorney appointments after judges questioned whether administration-backed officials were lawfully serving once statutory deadlines expired.
Several federal appellate judges have already expressed skepticism about using the “First Assistant” designation to effectively extend interim leadership indefinitely. At least one federal appeals court has ruled against the administration’s interpretation, although litigation remains ongoing and legal questions continue moving through the courts.
Those rulings could eventually shape how vacancies in federal prosecutor offices are handled nationwide.
Lawsuit Could Reach the Supreme Court
Rogoff has already retained legal counsel and confirmed preparations are underway for a federal lawsuit challenging his removal. The case could become one of the most closely watched separation of powers disputes of the year, raising fundamental questions about whether presidents may immediately remove prosecutors appointed by federal judges under statutory authority and whether administrations may use acting appointments to avoid Senate confirmation indefinitely.
If conflicting appellate rulings continue to emerge, the dispute could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices would be asked to define the constitutional boundaries between executive authority and the judiciary’s limited appointment powers. For now, Rogoff’s 54 minute tenure stands as one of the shortest in modern Justice Department history, and may become the catalyst for a landmark constitutional ruling on who truly controls America’s federal prosecutors.
