U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright ruled on Tuesday that Bill Essayli is unlawfully serving as the top federal prosecutor in southern California. The court barred him from overseeing two criminal prosecutions, finding that his appointment and subsequent title changes bypassed mandatory Senate confirmation rules.
Federal Judge J. Michael Seabright Bars Bill Essayli From Two Criminal Cases
Senior U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright ruled on Tuesday that Bill Essayli is unlawfully serving as Los Angeles’ top federal prosecutor. The decision disqualified him from overseeing two criminal cases in the Central District of California: the prosecution of Jaime Hector Ramirez, who faces gun charges in Riverside County, and Tu Anh Tran, who is accused of possessing stolen property in a Santa Ana warehouse. Specifically, Ramirez was arrested on gun charges in Riverside County, and Tran is accused of possessing property stolen from an interstate or foreign shipment.
Although the order removes Essayli from those specific proceedings, Seabright declined to dismiss the indictments altogether. The judge found that the defendants had not demonstrated the substantial prejudice required for that form of relief. The ruling itself will not take immediate effect, as the court established a schedule allowing prosecutors five business days to seek a stay pending appeal.
Title Shifts and the Long-Running Legal Battle Over Senate Confirmation
Essayli, a former Republican state lawmaker and ally of Donald Trump, became interim U.S. attorney in April 2025. Because he was never formally nominated by the president or confirmed by the Senate, his leadership of the office triggered a protracted legal challenge over federal vacancy laws.
Following the conclusion of Essayli’s initial interim tenure last July, the Trump administration assigned him an acting designation before retaining him as a first assistant subsequent to a judicial ruling that his service as U.S. attorney was unlawful. Afterwards, Attorney General Todd Blanche modified Essayli’s title in a maneuver the court described as an effort to circumvent federal regulations. During the proceedings before Seabright, Alexander Robbins maintained that this revised delegation successfully kept Essayli’s powers on the legal side of the boundary established by the appeals court.
Seabright rejected those arrangements, concluding that the Justice Department had delegated powers so sweeping that Essayli effectively occupied the prohibited office. The magistrate determined that the modification had no practical impact because those authorities could not have been conferred upon Essayli initially, observing that the exclusion of the three statutory powers specified in the updated designation directive actually withheld nothing at all. In sum, Essayli is unlawfully serving as a de facto United States Attorney,
Seabright wrote.
The Ninth Circuit Precedent and Fallout Across the Country
Tuesday’s decision relies heavily on an appellate ruling issued in August, when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a Nevada Justice Department leader in a similar appointment case involving Sigal Chattah. The appeals court determined that the Justice Department could not keep an unconfirmed official in charge of a U.S. attorney’s office simply by altering their title.
The dispute in Los Angeles mirrors a nationwide legal clash over administration appointments. In Virginia, a judge’s finding that Lindsey Halligan was improperly appointed led to the dismissal of indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Defense Challenges and the Department of Justice Response
H. Dean Steward, a defense attorney who challenged Essayli’s authority, praised the outcome in a statement reported by the Los Angeles Times.
The Trump administration ignored the laws governing the appointment of U.S. attorneys and got caught in Los Angeles. Trump and his Department of Justice violated the law again and again in an effort to install minions as chief federal prosecutors.
H. Dean Steward, Defense Attorney
Meanwhile, the Justice Department has signaled its intention to appeal, and the order will not take effect immediately as the DoJ prepares its challenge. Essayli defended his position in a public statement on Tuesday.
“We respectfully disagree with the court’s order,” Essayli said. “The President and the Attorney General have every right to select supervisors within the Justice Department. Ultimately, this question will be decided by the Supreme Court, and I look forward to serving in my current role until then.”
Bill Essayli