Former Judge Sues DOJ After 54-Minute Tenure as U.S. Attorney
The case tests whether a presidential removal executed within the first hour of a Senate-confirmed appointment violates federal law governing U.S. attorney tenure.
Roger Rogoff, a career prosecutor and former judge, filed suit against President Donald Trump and the Department of Justice in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington after being removed from the position of U.S. Attorney for that district 54 minutes after his appointment took effect, according to the complaint and reporting by the Washington Examiner (July 2026). Rogoff is seeking a preliminary injunction that would restore him to the post while litigation proceeds.
Rogoff and his legal team argue that the removal was unlawful under 28 U.S.C. § 541, the federal statute governing the appointment and tenure of U.S. attorneys, which provides that U.S. attorneys serve four-year terms. The complaint, filed in the Western District of Washington, contends that the administration's action violated the statutory protections attached to that office. The specific docket number had not been confirmed in available public records as of publication; the court's PACER system would contain the full filing.
The Trump administration has not filed a formal public response to the complaint as of July 22, 2026, based on available court records. The Department of Justice did not issue a public statement addressing the legal basis for Rogoff's removal, according to reporting by the Washington Examiner. The legal rationale the administration may assert — including any claim of unrestricted executive removal authority over principal officers — is not yet documented in a public filing.
The case joins a broader set of active federal litigation contesting the scope of executive removal power. Separately, the Supreme Court's 2020 ruling in Seila Law v. CFPB (591 U.S. 197) established limits on congressional restrictions of presidential removal authority over certain agency heads, though legal scholars note the applicability of that precedent to statutory U.S. attorney tenure protections remains unsettled. Whether the court in the Western District will treat the Rogoff appointment as conferring full statutory protections is a central legal question the preliminary injunction briefing will address.
What remains unknown: the full text of the complaint, the administration's formal legal defense, and whether the court has scheduled a hearing on the preliminary injunction request. The complete docket, including any government response, is publicly accessible through PACER under the Western District of Washington's case management system and would provide the primary documentary record of both parties' legal arguments.