A federal prosecutor in Washington state who was chosen to become the U.S.attorney and then quickly fired by President Donald Trump just a few minutes later has started a legal case against his removal.
Last week, a group of judges from the district court agreed unanimously to appoint Roger Rogoff as the leader of the Western District of Washington.
They picked the experienced Seattle prosecutor to fill a position that neither the 45th nor the 47th president had ever taken action on.However, less than an hour later, Trump sent an email and removed the judges’ choice.
Now, in a 24-page legal document, Rogoff’s legal team claims that the president’s action of firing him was not allowed by law.
The lawsuit says the president’s removal went against federal laws and the U.S.Constitution.
The legal filing states that the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington properly appointed Roger Rogoff as the U.S.Attorney based on a law that Congress clearly wrote for handling such situations.The lawsuit says this law is meant to protect Congress’s power to choose who fills certain positions.
Rogoff’s legal team argues that this law does not allow the president to just fire someone without going through the proper process.
They say the president’s action cannot be allowed to stand.
Instead, according to the lawsuit, the president’s only way to act after a court appoints someone is to officially confirm a new U.S.
attorney with the U.S.Senate.
“The law says Mr.
Rogoff should serve until someone is confirmed as the U.S.Attorney,” the lawsuit explains.”But so far, no one has even been nominated, let alone confirmed.”
The lawsuit says this situation reflects the balance of power between different branches of the government, as written in the Constitution.
The filing also says that the Trump administration is breaking the Appointments Clause by letting Trump’s preferred person take over in Washington state.
“Even though Charles Neil Floyd is doing all the work of the U.S.
Attorney—and, according to the defendants, could keep doing so forever—his appointment didn’t follow the Appointments Clause or the laws that come from it,” the complaint says.”This violates the Constitution and weakens the system of checks and balances.”
While Trump has removed judicial appointments of top prosecutors before, the government has had to deal with the problems caused by those people being suddenly taken away from their roles.
If Trump succeeds in keeping Rogoff out of his assigned position, the lawsuit argues, the Western District could continue to experience similar problems.
“The U.S.
Attorneys are required by law to prosecute all federal crimes and to handle civil cases involving the federal government,” the lawsuit continues.”By stopping Mr.Rogoff from doing his job, the defendants are causing serious harm to Mr.Rogoff and the public.”
Rogoff is asking for a court order that would return the duties and powers of his job to him and stop the Trump administration from interfering with him in any way.
About the Author
