Trump Fires Court-Appointed Seattle US Attorney Within 60 Minutes of Unanimous Judicial Appointment

In a stunning display of executive overreach, President Donald Trump fired Roger Rogoff less than an hour after the veteran prosecutor was unanimously sworn in as the new US attorney for western Washington by 17 active and senior federal judges. The move exposes a calculated effort to bypass Senate confirmation and install loyalists through backdoor maneuvers that courts have already questioned. This brazen action leaves the justice system reeling and raises urgent alarms about the erosion of institutional norms.

Trump Fires Rogoff in Record Time: Judges' Unanimous Pick Dismissed Before Lunch

Seattle, Washington – July 16, 2026 — President Donald Trump fired the new top federal prosecutor in Seattle on Wednesday less than an hour after the attorney was unanimously appointed by the federal judges in the district. Roger Rogoff, a former judge and veteran state and federal prosecutor, was sworn in as US attorney before 8am at the US courthouse in downtown Seattle. As he waited in a lobby to meet with Charles Neil Floyd, Rogoff said he received an email from the Trump administration informing him he had been removed from the position.

The Lightning-Fast Termination

Roger Rogoff's tenure lasted under 60 minutes from oath to dismissal. He had just been sworn in before 8am when the Trump administration's email arrived. The abrupt notice came while Rogoff waited to meet Charles Neil Floyd, underscoring how swiftly the White House acted to nullify the judges' unanimous order. This less-than-an-hour window reveals an administration unwilling to tolerate any independent appointment process.

The speed of the termination raises profound constitutional questions under the Appointments Clause, as it effectively nullifies the judiciary's statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 546 to fill vacancies temporarily when the president and Senate fail to act. Legal scholars note this tactic tests the boundaries of executive removal power established in cases like Myers v. United States, potentially inviting litigation that could reach the Supreme Court and further strain separation of powers. Critics argue it exemplifies a deliberate strategy to erode checks and balances during a period of heightened DOJ confirmation battles.

Historically, US attorney removals have aligned with the end of presidential terms or Senate-confirmed replacements rather than occurring within an hour of appointment, making this case an outlier that could allow Rogoff to invoke precedents such as Humphrey's Executor v. United States to argue limits on unrestricted at-will removal and pursue claims under the Appointments Clause.

Rogoff's Impressive Track Record

Rogoff spent 20 years as a state prosecutor and six as a federal prosecutor before becoming a state judge. Those decades built deep expertise across criminal justice systems. The federal judges in Seattle recognized this background when they selected him. His record of public service made him a natural choice for the role, yet it proved irrelevant to the administration's rapid rejection.

His nonpartisan credentials stand in stark contrast to the administration's preference for ideological alignment, highlighting a broader pattern where experienced career officials are sidelined in favor of unconfirmed loyalists. This approach risks undermining prosecutorial independence across districts, as evidenced by similar personnel maneuvers that prioritize political reliability over institutional expertise.

The 17-Judge Unanimous Order

The court comprising 17 active and senior judges appointed by five presidents issued its unanimous order naming Rogoff the US attorney for western Washington. A bipartisan panel reviewed applications after the appeals court raised doubts about prior maneuvers. This collective decision by judges from multiple administrations signaled broad consensus on the need for a qualified, independent leader.

The unanimous vote reflects growing judicial resistance to executive attempts to circumvent Senate advice and consent, a core constitutional safeguard. By invoking their temporary appointment powers, the judges directly challenged the administration's tactics amid ongoing confirmation fights, underscoring institutional pushback against perceived politicization of federal law enforcement.

Charles Neil Floyd's Extended Interim Role

Trump named Charles Neil Floyd interim US attorney last October but never forwarded his nomination to the Senate. When Floyd's term expired, Trump shifted his title to first assistant US attorney, leaving the top post empty. Under Trump, the justice department has sought to leave unconfirmed prosecutors in their positions indefinitely, often through novel personnel maneuvers that courts have scrutinized.

This maneuver forms part of a systematic effort to install allies without Senate scrutiny, mirroring disputes surrounding Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's own confirmation hearing. The approach raises serious questions about compliance with the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and threatens to weaken the Senate's constitutional role in overseeing key DOJ appointments.

Todd Blanche's Defense of the Move

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, facing his own Senate confirmation hearing this week, said in a social media post that district court judges can appoint a temporary US attorney and the president can fire them. Blanche claimed the judges abandoned the time-honored process of consultation. His statement frames the firing as routine despite the unprecedented speed and context of the judges' action.

Blanche's defense comes as he navigates intense scrutiny over his own nomination, revealing the administration's coordinated strategy to normalize bypassing traditional confirmation processes. Analysts view this as an attempt to consolidate control over prosecutions while deflecting accusations of undermining democratic norms during a contentious period for DOJ leadership.

Sen. Patty Murray's Sharp Rebuke

Sen. Patty Murray said Rogoff was eminently qualified and blasted his firing. She charged that this administration doesn't want to deal with advice and consent. Instead, Murray argued, they just want to install cronies to carry out a corrupt political agenda. Her criticism highlights the partisan stakes in bypassing Senate oversight.

Murray's remarks underscore the political implications of eroding Senate prerogatives, potentially setting precedents that could affect future administrations regardless of party. The episode amplifies concerns that such tactics could lead to selective enforcement and diminished public confidence in the impartiality of federal justice.

What This Means

The firing signals a dangerous escalation in executive efforts to control US attorney offices without Senate checks. By rejecting a unanimous judicial appointment of a prosecutor with 20 years as a state prosecutor and six as a federal prosecutor, the administration prioritizes loyalty over competence. This pattern risks politicizing prosecutions and weakening public trust in federal law enforcement across districts.

Constitutionally, the episode tests the durability of advice-and-consent requirements against aggressive executive unilateralism, with potential ripple effects on the balance of power between branches. It also illustrates how confirmation battles are being weaponized to reshape the DOJ's structure without legislative approval.

This episode erodes DOJ independence by demonstrating that even judicially selected officials can be swiftly removed for insufficient loyalty, likely causing career prosecutors in other districts to exercise greater caution in politically sensitive cases or consider leaving for private practice to avoid similar targeting.

Broader Pattern of Court-Appointed Firings

This is part of a broader pattern. In December, Alina Habba resigned as the top federal prosecutor for New Jersey after an appeals court said she had been serving unlawfully. Lindsey Halligan left her position as acting US attorney in Virginia after a judge concluded her appointment was unlawful, and the court-appointed replacement was also fired. A court-appointed US attorney in northern New York was also fired. Rogoff now weighs legal action to challenge his removal, stating he is proud of his career and humbled by the judges' belief in him.

The pattern reveals a consistent administration playbook of testing legal limits through interim appointments and swift removals, often colliding with judicial oversight. These repeated clashes during ongoing Senate confirmation processes signal a deliberate effort to reshape federal prosecutorial offices along partisan lines, carrying lasting implications for the rule of law.

The pattern foreshadows intensified Senate confirmation battles, as Democrats may block nominees to safeguard judicial appointment authority, potentially fragmenting the system and diminishing prospects for independent prosecutions insulated from executive pressure nationwide.

By Jessica Ali, Staff Writer