Will Rosenzweig is an attorney who had been working for just over five years as a U.S. prosecutor for the Southern District of Florida.
On Sept. 23, 2025, he was fired from his job without explanation. This occurred approximately three hours after an online right-wing blogger named Natalie Winters (who later took credit for bringing him down) posted an exclusive story charging that prior to being appointed to his prosecutorial position, Rosenzweig had made critical comments about Donald J. Trump and that he was now waging “LAWFARE against MAGA patriots.”
At the time, Rosenzweig had been the lead prosecutor in a major criminal case involving a multiyear, multimillion-dollar Medicare fraud scheme that, while ultimately successfully prosecuted without him, had to be postponed.
Rosenzweig’s Charges
On Aug. 7, 2026, he brought a suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami against Todd Blanche (then acting, now confirmed) Attorney General, the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney Jason A. Reding Quinoes, and the Office of Personnel Management on First Amendment and other grounds. He claimed that he had been fired “not for his work, but for his words” and sought back pay, reinstatement to his job and attorneys’ fees.
Rosenzweig’s attorneys point out that he had a strong record, had received multiple awards for his work, and had consistently received outstanding evaluations. He had essentially been tenured in his position with the Department of Justice (which would therefore require a “for cause” showing before any termination) after five years.
His attorneys listed five counts against the government, contending the firing violated:
- First Amendment protections for political speech and association,
- separation of powers,
- the Privacy Act,
- the guarantee of due process in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, and
- the Administrative Procedures Act.
Rosenzweig’s Arguments
Rosenzweig’s lawyers pointed out that Department of Justice attorneys could be divided into those who were political appointments and those who were in career positions. They argued that as a member of the second group, he was protected under civil service rules that were designed not to focus on his political views or affiliations and that he should have been protected by the Merit Systems Protection Board, which, however, had essentially become inoperable, hence requiring judicial review.
In arguing for Rosenzweig’s First Amendment rights, his attorneys said that the comments for which he had been criticized involved matters of public concern that he had made when he was still a private citizen and which were not connected to any official duties or on behalf of any governmental position and could not therefore be considered to be government speech.
With regard to separation of powers, Rosenzweig argued that he fell under the Civil Service Reform Act that Congress had adopted. He further argued that the government had violated the privacy act by not keeping or sharing any records that would warrant his dismissal. He also contended that, as a tenured or “permanent” employee, he had been denied due process and that the government had violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
Significance of the Case
In Trump v. Slaughter (2026), the Supreme Court overturned precedents and recognized fairly broad presidential authority to fire heads of independent regulatory agencies, classified as principal officers, but Rosenzweig appears to have been an inferior officer who is probably not covered by this decision.
His firing raises the specter of dismissals of civil servants not for their job performance but for past political views and associations, which, if sustained, is likely to have a chilling effect on these First Amendment rights.
John R. Vile is a political science professor and dean of the Honors College at Middle Tennessee State University.