Blab Politics
DOJ Fires Newly Appointed U.S. Attorney Roger Rogoff in Seattle Less Than an Hour After Appointment
The Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissed Roger Rogoff as U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington on Wednesday, 54 minutes after he was sworn in by the district’s federal judges. The dismissal was carried out by the DOJ at the direction of the Trump administration, according to reports.
Rogoff was appointed by the three judges who sit in the Western District of Washington after the position had been vacant for several months. In the federal system, a district court may appoint a U.S. attorney when the President has not nominated a replacement and the Senate has not confirmed one. Rogoff’s appointment was therefore a judicial action, not a presidential nomination.
He had been a King County Superior Court judge since 2013, when he was appointed by then‑Governor Jay Inslee. Rogoff began hearing cases on January 6, 2014, and served as a state judge for more than a decade before returning to federal service.
In 2022, Rogoff was named director of Washington’s Office of Independent Investigations (OII). The OII was created in 2021 to conduct independent investigations into incidents in which law enforcement officers used deadly force. As director, Rogoff oversaw investigations into allegations of excessive use of force by police across the state.
The DOJ’s decision to remove Rogoff was communicated to him by email. No official statement explaining the reason for the dismissal has been released. According to reports, the DOJ has the authority to remove U.S. attorneys, but the agency has not provided a public rationale.
In a brief statement after his dismissal, Rogoff said, “The rule of law requires that prosecutorial decisions remain free from political interference, and that lawful judicial appointments be respected. I remain grateful for the confidence placed in me and proud of the career professionals who continue to serve the people of Western Washington.” The statement was issued through his office.
The firing raises questions about the independence of federal prosecutors and the extent to which political actors can influence the appointment and removal of U.S. attorneys. The Western District of Washington’s judges had exercised their statutory authority to fill the vacancy, only to have the DOJ reverse the decision shortly thereafter.
The DOJ has not indicated whether it will appoint a new U.S. attorney for the district. The position remains vacant, and the district court’s judges may again exercise their appointment authority if the vacancy persists.
The incident is part of a broader pattern in which the Trump administration has been reported to remove U.S. attorneys soon after they are appointed. Similar dismissals have occurred in other districts, prompting concerns about the politicization of federal law enforcement.
The legal framework for U.S. attorney appointments and removals is set out in Title 28 of the United States Code. While the President nominates U.S. attorneys and the Senate confirms them, the DOJ can remove a U.S. attorney for cause. The current case illustrates the tension between judicial appointment authority and executive oversight.
At this time, no court filings or official DOJ documents have been made public that explain the decision. The Western District of Washington’s judges have not yet announced a new appointment, and the district’s attorneys’ office remains without a chief federal prosecutor.
The situation remains unresolved. The DOJ has not announced a replacement, and the district court’s judges have not indicated when they will act again. The case highlights the need for clear communication between the DOJ and the judiciary regarding the status of U.S. attorney appointments.
The incident also underscores the importance of maintaining the independence of federal prosecutors, particularly in districts with active investigations into law enforcement conduct. Rogoff’s background in the OII and his experience as a judge may have made him a valuable asset to the district’s federal office.
In the absence of an official explanation, observers are watching for any forthcoming statements from the DOJ or the Western District of Washington’s judges. The next steps will determine whether the district will see a new U.S. attorney and how the DOJ will handle future appointments.
Until a new appointment is made, the Western District of Washington’s U.S. attorney’s office will continue to operate under the oversight of the DOJ’s Office of the Attorney General.
The case remains a focal point for discussions about the separation of powers and the role of the executive branch in overseeing federal law enforcement.
Rogoff was appointed by the three judges who sit in the Western District of Washington after the position had been vacant for several months. In the federal system, a district court may appoint a U.S. attorney when the President has not nominated a replacement and the Senate has not confirmed one. Rogoff’s appointment was therefore a judicial action, not a presidential nomination.
He had been a King County Superior Court judge since 2013, when he was appointed by then‑Governor Jay Inslee. Rogoff began hearing cases on January 6, 2014, and served as a state judge for more than a decade before returning to federal service.
In 2022, Rogoff was named director of Washington’s Office of Independent Investigations (OII). The OII was created in 2021 to conduct independent investigations into incidents in which law enforcement officers used deadly force. As director, Rogoff oversaw investigations into allegations of excessive use of force by police across the state.
The DOJ’s decision to remove Rogoff was communicated to him by email. No official statement explaining the reason for the dismissal has been released. According to reports, the DOJ has the authority to remove U.S. attorneys, but the agency has not provided a public rationale.
In a brief statement after his dismissal, Rogoff said, “The rule of law requires that prosecutorial decisions remain free from political interference, and that lawful judicial appointments be respected. I remain grateful for the confidence placed in me and proud of the career professionals who continue to serve the people of Western Washington.” The statement was issued through his office.
The firing raises questions about the independence of federal prosecutors and the extent to which political actors can influence the appointment and removal of U.S. attorneys. The Western District of Washington’s judges had exercised their statutory authority to fill the vacancy, only to have the DOJ reverse the decision shortly thereafter.
The DOJ has not indicated whether it will appoint a new U.S. attorney for the district. The position remains vacant, and the district court’s judges may again exercise their appointment authority if the vacancy persists.
The incident is part of a broader pattern in which the Trump administration has been reported to remove U.S. attorneys soon after they are appointed. Similar dismissals have occurred in other districts, prompting concerns about the politicization of federal law enforcement.
The legal framework for U.S. attorney appointments and removals is set out in Title 28 of the United States Code. While the President nominates U.S. attorneys and the Senate confirms them, the DOJ can remove a U.S. attorney for cause. The current case illustrates the tension between judicial appointment authority and executive oversight.
At this time, no court filings or official DOJ documents have been made public that explain the decision. The Western District of Washington’s judges have not yet announced a new appointment, and the district’s attorneys’ office remains without a chief federal prosecutor.
The situation remains unresolved. The DOJ has not announced a replacement, and the district court’s judges have not indicated when they will act again. The case highlights the need for clear communication between the DOJ and the judiciary regarding the status of U.S. attorney appointments.
The incident also underscores the importance of maintaining the independence of federal prosecutors, particularly in districts with active investigations into law enforcement conduct. Rogoff’s background in the OII and his experience as a judge may have made him a valuable asset to the district’s federal office.
In the absence of an official explanation, observers are watching for any forthcoming statements from the DOJ or the Western District of Washington’s judges. The next steps will determine whether the district will see a new U.S. attorney and how the DOJ will handle future appointments.
Until a new appointment is made, the Western District of Washington’s U.S. attorney’s office will continue to operate under the oversight of the DOJ’s Office of the Attorney General.
The case remains a focal point for discussions about the separation of powers and the role of the executive branch in overseeing federal law enforcement.
