Case: Rosenzweig v. Blanche

1:26-cv-25321 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Filed Date: Aug. 7, 2026

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

A prosecutor at the United States Attorney’s Office sued the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”)  for violating his First Amendment right to free speech, alleging he was terminated by the DOJ for his decade-old political speech criticizing President Trump.  On August 7, 2026, a prosecutor at the United States Attorney’s Office assigned to the Southern District of Florida, represented by private counsel, filed claims in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the DOJ,…

A prosecutor at the United States Attorney’s Office sued the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”)  for violating his First Amendment right to free speech, alleging he was terminated by the DOJ for his decade-old political speech criticizing President Trump. 

On August 7, 2026, a prosecutor at the United States Attorney’s Office assigned to the Southern District of Florida, represented by private counsel, filed claims in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the DOJ, the acting DOJ Attorney General, an official at the United States Attorney’s Office of Southern Florida, and the Office of Personnel Management to challenge the termination of his employment. 

Nearly one decade earlier, the prosecutor, while he was a private citizen, published a blog that included criticisms of President Trump. On September 23, 2025, a right-wing online commentator with roughly 600,000 followers began posting about the prosecutor's blogs on the social media platform X, asserting that the prosecutor was “using government power to wage LAWFARE against MAGA patriots.” The online commentator tagged the accounts of high-ranking members of the Trump administration and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, notifying them and urging that the prosecutor be fired. 

Less than 3 hours after these posts, DOJ’s Justice Management Division sent an email to the prosecutor with an attached memorandum signed by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi. The memorandum stated, “[p]ursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States, your employment with the Department of Justice is hereby terminated, and you are removed from federal services effective immediately.” The memorandum gave no reason for the termination of employment. 

The termination came just days before the prosecutor was to serve as lead trial counsel in a multi-million dollar Medicare fraud scheme. According to the prosecutor’s complaint, by terminating him, the DOJ “effectively sabotaged its own criminal prosecution of a multi-million dollar fraud case at the urging of a social media post.”

The prosecutor filed four claims against all Defendants. First, the prosecutor alleges that all Defendants violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for his termination in retaliation for published criticisms of President Trump. Second, the prosecutor alleges that all Defendants violated the Separation of Powers doctrine by terminating the prosecutor over the express will of Congress in the Civil Service Reform Act. Congress maintains exclusive authority to regulate and restrict the removal of inferior officers and federal employees. Third, the prosecutor alleges that Defendants’ termination of Plaintiff without due process unlawfully deprived him of his property interest in his employment and violated the Civil Service Reform Act, which provides the standard of due process applicable to employees in the prosecutor’s position. Finally, the prosecutor alleges that all Defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act as they had no lawful authority to terminate the prosecutor from federal service without adhering to the protections afforded him through the Civil Service Reform Act. 

The prosecutor also filed one claim specifically against Defendant DOJ for an alleged violation of the Privacy Act. He alleges that the DOJ maintained a record of and disseminated materials related to his individual exercise of his First Amendment right in violation of the Privacy Act.

A final discovery status conference is set for February 2, 2027. Since August 11, 2026, the Court has issued several orders recusing magistrate judges and reassigning the case to other magistrate judges for pretrial matters.

This case is ongoing. 

Summary Authors

Ike Start (8/31/2026)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73734036/parties/rosenzweig-v-blanche/


Judge(s)

Moore, Kevin Michael (Florida)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Donovan, Margaret M. (Florida)

Fridman, Daniel Scott (Florida)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case
1

1:26-cv-25321

Complaint

Aug. 7, 2026

Aug. 7, 2026

Complaint

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73734036/rosenzweig-v-blanche/

Last updated Sept. 28, 2026, 3:09 a.m.

Docket for: Rosenzweig v. Blanche
ECF Number Date Description Link
1 Aug. 7, 2026

COMPLAINT against All Defendants. Filing fees $ 405.00 receipt number AFLSDC-19840330, filed by Will Rosenzweig. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Summon(s))(Fridman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/07/2026)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 1

View on RECAP

3 Exhibit 2

View on RECAP

4 Exhibit 3

View on RECAP

5 Summon(s)

View on PACER

Clearinghouse
2 Aug. 7, 2026

Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge K. Michael Moore. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. (khrs) (Entered: 08/07/2026)

RECAP
3 Aug. 7, 2026

Summons Issued as to Todd Blanche, Office of Personnel Management, Jason A Reding Quiones, United States Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (khrs) (Entered: 08/07/2026)

RECAP
Aug. 7, 2026

Clerk's Notice of Judge Assignment and Optional Consent

4 Aug. 8, 2026

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Margaret M. Donovan. Filing Fee $ 250.00 Receipt # AFLSDC-19844178 by Will Rosenzweig. Responses due by 8/24/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Margaret M. Donovan)(Fridman, Daniel) (Entered: 08/08/2026)

RECAP
5 Aug. 10, 2026

PAPERLESS PRETRIAL ORDER. This order has been entered upon the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff's counsel is hereby ORDERED to forward to all defendants, upon receipt of a responsive pleading, a copy of this Order. It is further ORDERED that S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1 shall apply to this case and the parties shall hold a scheduling conference no later than twenty (20) days after the filing of the first responsive pleading by the last responding defendant, or within sixty (60) days after the filing of the complaint, whichever occurs first. However, if all defendants have not been served by the expiration of this deadline, Plaintiff shall move for an enlargement of time to hold the scheduling conference, not to exceed 90 days from the filing of the Complaint. Within ten (10) days of the scheduling conference, counsel shall file a joint scheduling report. Failure of counsel to file a joint scheduling report within the deadlines set forth above may result in dismissal, default, and the imposition of other sanctions including attorney's fees and costs. The parties should note that the time period for filing a joint scheduling report is not tolled by the filing of any other pleading, such as an amended complaint or Rule 12 motion. The scheduling conference may be held via telephone. At the conference, the parties shall comply with the following agenda that the Court adopts from S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1: (1) Documents (S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.B.1 and 2) - The parties shall determine the procedure for exchanging a copy of, or a description by category and location of, all documents and other evidence that is reasonably available and that a party expects to offer or may offer if the need arises. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B). (a) Documents include computations of the nature and extent of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party unless the computations are privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C). (b) Documents include insurance agreements which may be at issue with the satisfaction of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(D). (2) List of Witnesses - The parties shall exchange the name, address and telephone number of each individual known to have knowledge of the facts supporting the material allegations of the pleading filed by the party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). The parties have a continuing obligation to disclose this information. (3) Discussions and Deadlines (S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.B.2) - The parties shall discuss the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case. Failure to comply with this Order or to exchange the information listed above may result in sanctions and/or the exclusion of documents or witnesses at the time of trial. S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.I. The parties are hereby on notice that this Court requires all filings to be formatted in 12 point Times New Roman font and double spaced, including any footnotes, with one inch margins on all sides. Failure to follow these formatting guidelines may result in the filing being stricken, any opposing filing being granted by default, and the imposition of other sanctions, including attorney's fees and costs. Multiple Plaintiffs or Defendants shall file joint motions with co-parties unless there are clear conflicts of position. If conflicts of position exist, parties shall explain the conflicts in their separate motions. Failure to comply with ANY of these procedures may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including but not limited to, the striking of the motion or dismissal of this action. The parties shall seek extensions of time in a timely fashion. "A motion for extension of time is not self-executing.... Yet, by filing these motions on or near the last day, and then sitting idle pending the Court's disposition of the motion, parties essentially grant their own motion. The Court will not condone this." Compere v. Nusret Miami, LLC, 2020 WL 2844888, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 7, 2020) (internal citations omitted). Pursuant to Administrative Order 2016-70 of the Southern District of Florida and consistent with the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit's Local Rules and Internal Operating Procedures, within three (3) days of the conclusion of a trial or other proceeding, parties must file via CM/ECF electronic versions of documentary exhibits admitted into evidence, including photographs of non-documentary physical exhibits. The Parties are directed to comply with each of the requirements set forth in Administrative Order 2016-70 unless directed otherwise by the Court.Telephonic appearances are not permitted for any purpose. Upon reaching a settlement in this matter the parties are instructed to notify the Court by telephone and to file a Notice of Settlement within twenty-four (24) hours. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 8/10/2026. (ss02) (Entered: 08/10/2026)

RECAP
6 Aug. 10, 2026

PAPERLESS ORDER REFERRING PRETRIAL DISCOVERY MATTERS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARTY FULGUEIRA ELFENBEIN. PURSUANT to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Magistrate Judge Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, the above-captioned Cause is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein to take all necessary and proper action as required by law with respect to any and all pretrial discovery matters. Any motion affecting deadlines set by the Court's Scheduling Order is excluded from this referral, unless specifically referred by separate Order. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall comply with Magistrate Judge Elfenbein's discovery procedures. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 8/10/2026. (ss02) (Entered: 08/10/2026)

RECAP
7 Aug. 10, 2026

PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Margaret M. Donovan. 4 . UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion 4 is GRANTED. Margaret M. Donovan may appear pro hac vice in this matter on behalf of Plaintiff. The Clerk of Court shall provide electronic notification of all electronic filings to mdonovan@koskoff.com. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 8/10/2026. (ss02) (Entered: 08/10/2026)

RECAP
Aug. 10, 2026

Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge

Aug. 10, 2026

Pretrial Order

Aug. 10, 2026

Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

8 Aug. 11, 2026

ORDER OF RECUSAL. Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein recused. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Eduardo I. Sanchez for all further proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein on 8/10/2026. See attached document for full details. (vjk) (Entered: 08/11/2026)

RECAP
9 Aug. 12, 2026

ORDER OF RECUSAL AND ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT. Magistrate Judge Eduardo I. Sanchez recused. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid for all further proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eduardo I. Sanchez on 8/11/2026. See attached document for full details. (vjk) (Entered: 08/12/2026)

RECAP
10 Aug. 20, 2026

ORDER OF RECUSAL. Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid recused. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Yeney Hernandez for all further proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid on 8/20/2026. See attached document for full details. (vjk) (Entered: 08/20/2026)

RECAP
11 Aug. 21, 2026

ORDER OF RECUSAL AND ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT. Magistrate Judge Yeney Hernandez recused. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Enjolique A. Lett for all further proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Yeney Hernandez on 8/20/2026. See attached document for full details. (vjk) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

RECAP
13 Aug. 21, 2026

Clerk's Notice of Docket Correction re 12 AMENDED PAPERLESS ORDER SETTING FINAL DISCOVERY STATUS CONFERENCE VIA ZOOM: Document Filed in Wrong Case; Document restricted and docket text modified. Document refiled in correct case # 2:26-CV-140070. (mno) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

RECAP
Aug. 21, 2026

Clerk's Notice of Docket Correction - Chambers and Clerks

Aug. 21, 2026

~Util - Terminate Deadlines and Hearings

Aug. 21, 2026

Order

Aug. 21, 2026

SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 12 [order] restricted/sealed until further notice. (mno)

Aug. 21, 2026

Final Discovery Status Conference hearing set for 2/2/2027 before Judge Galler, set in the wrong case. Hearing terminated. See case 2:26-cv-14174 for correct image. (mno)

14 Aug. 24, 2026

ORDER Setting Discovery Procedures. Signed by Magistrate Judge Enjolique A. Lett on 8/24/2026. See attached document for full details. (ls) (Entered: 08/24/2026)

Clearinghouse
15 Sept. 17, 2026

SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on 1 Complaint, with a 21 day response/answer filing deadline pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 by Will Rosenzweig. Todd Blanche served on 8/17/2026, response/answer due 9/8/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Return of Service)(Fridman, Daniel) (Entered: 09/17/2026)

RECAP
16 Sept. 17, 2026

SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on 1 Complaint, with a 21 day response/answer filing deadline pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 by Will Rosenzweig. Office of Personnel Management served on 8/27/2026, response/answer due 9/17/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Return of Service)(Fridman, Daniel) (Entered: 09/17/2026)

RECAP
17 Sept. 17, 2026

SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on 1 Complaint, with a 21 day response/answer filing deadline pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 by Will Rosenzweig. United States Department of Justice served on 8/19/2026, response/answer due 9/9/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Return of Service)(Fridman, Daniel) (Entered: 09/17/2026)

RECAP
Sept. 21, 2026

Clerk's Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer - Attorney

Sept. 21, 2026

Summons (Affidavit) Returned EXECUTED AS TO USA DFTS

Case Details

State / Territory:

Florida

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 7, 2026

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Prosecutor at the Assistant United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Federal

United States Department of Justice

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.

Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Freedom of speech/association

Separation of Powers

Other Dockets:

Southern District of Florida 1:26-cv-25321

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Relief Sought:

Attorneys fees

Damages

Declaratory judgment

Injunction

Relief Granted:

None yet

Source of Relief:

None yet

Content of Injunction:

Position Restored

Issues

Discrimination Area:

Content/viewpoint discrimination

Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority:

Civil Service

Recommended Citation