US attorney who Trump fired minutes after he got the job sues to get it back
Activelifezero.com – “`html
Washington Prosecutor Challenges Trump Administration After Immediate Dismissal
Roger Rogoff, a seasoned legal professional who previously served as both a judge and prosecutor, has initiated legal proceedings against the Trump administration. His lawsuit challenges the administration’s decision to remove him from the position of United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington, an appointment that lasted barely sixty minutes. The removal occurred shortly after a collective of federal judges cast unanimous votes in favor of selecting Rogoff for the prestigious role. This legal action represents the inaugural case of its nature as the current administration persists in its efforts to maintain firm control over federal prosecutorial appointments nationwide.
Legal Basis for the Challenge
According to the complaint filed on Tuesday, existing legislation explicitly permits federal judges to designate interim United States attorneys when vacancies exist. Rogoff’s legal team emphasizes that no individual has yet received a nomination from the President, much less achieved Senate confirmation for the Washington position. The lawsuit contends that the administration’s actions not only contravene established constitutional principles but also enable the executive branch to effectively modify statutory requirements without congressional approval.
“The President cannot grant himself the authority to make those interim appointments instead, nor can he rewrite (the law) to require presidential approval of the district court’s choice,” the legal document asserts.
The complaint specifically requests that the Trump administration honor the judicial panel’s selection and restore Rogoff to his rightful position. Legal experts suggest this case could establish important precedents regarding the balance of power between the judiciary and executive branches in prosecutorial appointments.
Administration’s Response and Justification
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche addressed the situation through a social media statement published on the day Rogoff received his dismissal. Blanche acknowledged that while district court judges possess the authority to appoint temporary United States attorneys, the President retains the power to remove such appointees. The acting Attorney General further criticized the Washington judges for bypassing traditional consultation procedures with the administration that typically ensure selected prosecutors meet the executive branch’s qualifications standards.
“District court judges can appoint a temporary U.S. Attorney, and POTUS can fire them,” Blanche explained. “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 fired by the President.”
Broader Context of Judicial-Executive Tensions
Rogoff’s situation is not unprecedented within the current administration’s approach to federal prosecutorial appointments. Several other district court judges have similarly appointed lead prosecutors who were subsequently dismissed by the Trump administration. While Rogoff has chosen to pursue legal remedies, other appointed prosecutors have accepted their dismissals and allowed the Justice Department to install leadership of its preference.
The Justice Department has encountered similar conflicts in multiple geographic regions across the nation. In numerous instances, the department has maintained prosecutors whom district court judges determined were not properly appointed due to excessive delays in achieving Senate confirmation. These jurisdictional disputes highlight ongoing tensions regarding the interpretation of appointment timelines and procedural requirements.
Notable Precedents and Related Cases
The most prominent example of this judicial-executive conflict occurred in Northern Virginia during the previous year. Federal Judge T.S. Ellis III dismissed several criminal cases that then-acting United States Attorney Lindsey Halligan had prosecuted against New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey. The judge determined that Halligan lacked proper appointment authority and had not received Senate confirmation for her position.
Halligan ultimately resigned from her post following the case dismissals and continued criticism regarding her tenure leading the Eastern District of Virginia. The Justice Department continues to pursue appeals of the rulings concerning both the Comey and James cases, seeking to overturn the judicial decisions.
Additionally, Alina Habba, a former personal attorney to Donald Trump, was compelled to resign after an appellate court determined she had been improperly serving as United States Attorney for New Jersey. These cases collectively demonstrate the administration’s pattern of challenging judicial appointments and asserting executive authority over prosecutorial positions.
CNN has contacted the Department of Justice requesting additional commentary on the Rogoff lawsuit and its potential implications for future appointments. Katelyn Polantz contributed reporting to this coverage.
“`
