A federal judge has ruled that Bill Essayli cannot continue exercising the authority of Southern California’s top federal prosecutor through his first assistant U.S. attorney position, disqualifying him from two criminal cases while allowing the Justice Department time to appeal.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Bill Essayli, President Donald Trump’s choice to lead the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, has been unlawfully exercising the authority of a U.S. attorney without Senate confirmation, disqualifying him from supervising two criminal prosecutions.
U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright issued the Oct. 27 ruling after determining that the Justice Department improperly used Essayli’s designation as first assistant U.S. attorney to circumvent federal restrictions on temporary appointments.
“In sum, Essayli is unlawfully serving as a ‘de facto’ United States Attorney, and is disqualified from participating in or supervising the prosecutions of Ramirez and Tran,” Seabright wrote, according to CBS Los Angeles.
The ruling concerns criminal prosecutions involving defendants Jaime Hector Ramirez and Tu Anh Tran. Seabright prohibited Essayli from participating in the cases or supervising the attorneys handling them.
However, the judge declined defense requests to dismiss the indictments, finding that the defendants had not demonstrated sufficient prejudice to justify that remedy.
The disqualification will not take effect immediately. Seabright gave federal prosecutors five business days to request a stay while the government pursues an appeal.
If the court denies the stay, the disqualifications are scheduled to become effective one week later, unless another court intervenes.
Essayli rejected the ruling and defended the administration’s authority to appoint Justice Department leadership.
“We respectfully disagree with the court’s order,” Essayli said in a statement reported by Fox News.
“The President and the Attorney General have every right to select supervisors within the Justice Department,” he said.
Essayli added that “ultimately, this question will be decided by the Supreme Court, and I look forward to serving in my current role until then.”
The decision marks another setback for the Trump administration’s efforts to maintain federal prosecutors in senior positions after temporary appointment periods expire.
Essayli, a former Republican California assemblyman, was appointed interim U.S. attorney for the Central District of California in April 2025.
The district includes Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, serving approximately 19 million residents.
Under federal law, an interim U.S. attorney appointed by the attorney general generally may serve for 120 days. Permanent U.S. attorneys ordinarily require presidential nomination and Senate confirmation.
As Essayli approached the statutory limit in 2025, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed him as first assistant U.S. attorney and designated him a special attorney.
The arrangement allowed Essayli to continue directing the office despite the expiration of his interim appointment.
In October 2025, Seabright ruled that Essayli could no longer lawfully serve as acting U.S. attorney but permitted him to remain in his other positions.
The government subsequently relied on those designations to maintain Essayli’s supervisory authority.
Tuesday’s ruling reconsidered that arrangement in light of an August 2026 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals involving Sigal Chattah, another Trump administration prosecutor.
Chattah had been serving as the top federal prosecutor in Nevada through a similar arrangement involving the first assistant U.S. attorney position.
The appeals court concluded that the attorney general could not effectively recreate an acting U.S. attorney position by delegating nearly all of the office’s responsibilities to an individual whose temporary appointment had expired.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Seabright found that the Justice Department’s subsequent modifications to Essayli’s responsibilities did not resolve the same underlying problem.
“Withholding the three specific statutory powers mentioned in the revised designation order in reality withholds nothing,” Seabright wrote.
The judge concluded that Essayli continued performing substantially the same functions as a U.S. attorney despite his different title.
The distinction was central to the legal dispute because federal appointment restrictions concern the powers exercised by an official, not merely the title assigned to that individual.
Defense attorneys argued that allowing Essayli to supervise prosecutions through an alternative designation effectively nullified the statutory limits imposed by Congress.
The Justice Department maintained that the attorney general possesses broad authority to assign supervisory responsibilities to federal prosecutors.
Government attorneys also warned that immediately disqualifying Essayli could disrupt criminal proceedings and create administrative uncertainty across one of the country’s largest federal prosecutorial districts.
Seabright acknowledged the potential consequences by delaying implementation while the government seeks appellate review.
The administration had not submitted a permanent U.S. attorney nomination for the Central District of California as of Tuesday’s ruling, the judge noted.
Essayli has remained a prominent figure in the administration’s law enforcement activities in California.
During his tenure, the office has pursued prosecutions involving immigration enforcement, alleged organized criminal activity and demonstrations against federal immigration operations.
Essayli has also publicly supported federal legal challenges to California policies involving environmental regulation and transgender-related issues.
The latest judicial decision does not automatically invalidate those cases or establish that every action taken during his tenure was unlawful.
Instead, it specifically addresses whether Essayli can exercise supervisory authority over the two challenged prosecutions under the appointment arrangements established by the Justice Department.
Similar disputes have affected other Trump administration prosecutors.
Courts previously questioned the authority of Alina Habba in New Jersey and Lindsey Halligan in Virginia, where challenges to temporary appointments raised concerns about compliance with federal law.
Those cases have produced different procedural consequences, including the dismissal of certain indictments.
In California, Seabright declined to dismiss the charges against Ramirez and Tran, limiting the immediate remedy to Essayli’s disqualification.
The decision leaves the underlying criminal prosecutions intact while creating additional uncertainty over who may lawfully supervise them.
The Justice Department is expected to challenge the ruling, potentially bringing the appointment dispute before the 9th Circuit and, ultimately, the Supreme Court.
For now, Essayli remains in his position while the courts consider whether to suspend the disqualification during appellate proceedings.
Tuesday’s ruling establishes that, in Seabright’s judgment, the administration cannot avoid restrictions on temporary U.S. attorney appointments by assigning an official essentially the same authority under the title of first assistant U.S. attorney.
Original article
Comments