Judge Rules Bill Essayli Unlawfully Serving as LA Federal Prosecutor

A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in southern California, was unlawfully serving as the head of the US attorney’s office and was disqualified from overseeing two criminal prosecutions, theguardian.com reported.

Senior U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright issued the order, rejecting the Justice Department’s latest legal maneuver to preserve Essayli’s authority. The ruling blocks Essayli from participating in or supervising the cases of defendants Jaime Hector Ramirez and Tu Anh Tran, though the judge declined to dismiss the underlying indictments.

The dispute stems from a long-running legal challenge against the Trump administration’s methods for keeping Essayli in office without Senate confirmation. Essayli initially became an interim US attorney in April 2025 after working as a Republican state lawmaker and political ally of Donald Trump. Because he was never formally nominated by the president, he bypassed the standard Senate confirmation process.

Legal Battle Over Interim and Acting Appointments in Los Angeles

When Essayli’s interim appointment expired last July, the Trump administration gave him an acting title. After a judge ruled that arrangement unlawful, officials kept him on as a first assistant and special attorney. The Justice Department revised its delegation of authority to carve out specific powers, arguing it complied with higher court rulings.

Seabright dismissed that argument on Tuesday. He concluded that the Justice Department had unlawfully delegated powers so sweeping that Essayli remained a de facto United States Attorney.

“In sum, Essayli is unlawfully serving as a ‘de facto’ United States Attorney,” Seabright wrote, as reported by latimes.com.

The decision directly follows a ruling by the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals against a similar arrangement involving Nevada prosecutor Sigal Chattah. That appellate court ruled the Justice Department cannot keep an unconfirmed official in charge of a US attorney’s office merely by changing their title and granting them full operational powers.

Seabright Delays Enforcement Pending Anticipated Appeal

The Tuesday order will not take effect immediately. Seabright delayed enforcement while he considers an anticipated government request for a stay pending appeal. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has asked the US Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit decision regarding Nevada, though the high court has not yet stated whether it will take up the case.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, Essayli disagreed with the court’s order. “The President and the Attorney General have every right to select supervisors within the Justice Department,” Essayli said, adding that he expects the Supreme Court to ultimately decide the question.

Defense lawyers who challenged the appointment praised the ruling. H. Dean Steward, a defense attorney representing challengers in the case, called the decision a victory for the rule of law and the US Constitution.

“The Trump administration ignored the laws governing the appointment of US attorneys and got caught in Los Angeles,” Steward told the Los Angeles Times. “Trump and his Department of Justice violated the law again and again in an effort to install minions as chief federal prosecutors.”

Other Administration Appointments Face Legal Challenges

The California case mirrors challenges to administration appointments across the country. In New Jersey, Alina Habba was disqualified from the top prosecutor job in December, though she remained at the Justice Department as a senior adviser. In Virginia, a judge found Lindsey Halligan was unlawfully appointed, leading to the dismissal of indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

During his tenure over the last year, Essayli pursued high-profile cases aligning with the MAGA agenda, including aggressive deportation enforcement of immigrants and the prosecution of protesters. More recently, he launched a campaign targeting voter fraud, alleging that thousands of registered voters in California are likely non-citizens and attempting to set aside their ballots—efforts that state election officials have strongly opposed.

The Supreme Court has not yet indicated when it might decide whether to review the underlying appointment authority questions.