In a ruling that challenges the structural leadership of the largest federal prosecutor’s office in the West, a federal judge on Tuesday determined that Bill Essayli is unlawfully serving as Los Angeles’ top federal prosecutor. Senior U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright ordered Essayli disqualified from overseeing two active criminal cases, rejecting the Department of Justice’s latest legal framework designed to maintain his authority over the office.
While the disqualification specifically applies to two pending prosecutions, the scope of Judge Seabright’s order is far broader. He effectively dismantled the legal arrangement that has allowed Essayli to lead the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California under the title of first assistant U.S. attorney. The judge concluded that the Justice Department had delegated powers so extensive to Essayli that he was, in practice, occupying the U.S. attorney’s position without the constitutionally required Senate confirmation.
“In sum, Essayli is unlawfully serving as a ‘de facto’ United States Attorney,” Seabright wrote in his decision. The judge has delayed the disqualifications from taking immediate effect to allow time for the government to request a stay pending an anticipated appeal.
Following the ruling on Tuesday afternoon, Essayli stated that his office expected the decision and indicated that the ultimate resolution would lie with the nation’s highest court. “The case will be decided by the Supreme Court,” Essayli said, adding that he looks forward to serving in his current role until that time.
This legal conflict is a primary front in a nationwide dispute regarding the Trump administration’s efforts to install top prosecutors without undergoing the Senate confirmation process. Other states have seen similar challenges. In New Jersey, Alina Habba stepped down as the top federal prosecutor in December after an appeals court found her appointment was unlawful. In Virginia, a judge’s finding that Lindsey Halligan was unlawfully appointed resulted in the dismissal of indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
In the Los Angeles cases, the defense moved to have indictments dismissed for defendants Jaime Hector Ramirez and Tu Anh Tran. While Judge Seabright barred Essayli from participating in or supervising their cases—including his oversight of the specific attorneys handling the matters—he declined to dismiss the indictments themselves. The judge noted that the defendants had not demonstrated the “substantial prejudice” required for such a dismissal.
Essayli’s path to the leadership role began in April 2025, when he was sworn in as interim U.S. attorney. Under federal law, such interim appointments are subject to a 120-day limit. When that limit was reached, Essayli resigned, and then-Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed him as a special attorney and designated him as the first assistant. This move was intended to allow him to continue as the acting leader of the office.
Judge Seabright had previously ruled last year that Essayli was “not lawfully serving” as acting U.S. attorney but had initially permitted him to exercise authority as a special attorney and first assistant. However, a subsequent ruling from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Nevada prosecutor Sigal Chattah fundamentally changed the legal landscape. The appellate court determined that the Department of Justice cannot circumvent Senate confirmation by giving an official a different title while granting them the full powers of the vacant U.S. attorney position.
In an attempt to comply with the 9th Circuit’s precedent, the Justice Department issued a revised delegation of authority for Essayli, which explicitly excluded three specific statutory powers reserved for a U.S. attorney. During an October 13 hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander Robbins argued that these exclusions placed Essayli’s authority on the legal side of the line drawn by the appellate court.
Judge Seabright was not convinced, ruling that the revision was a distinction without a difference. He noted that the specific powers withheld were ones that could not have been legally delegated to Essayli in the first place. “Withholding the three specific statutory powers mentioned in the revised designation order in reality withholds nothing,” the judge wrote.
H. Dean Steward, a defense attorney who challenged Essayli’s authority in August, characterized the ruling as a victory for constitutional law. He argued that the administration has consistently ignored the statutes governing the appointment of chief federal prosecutors in an attempt to install specific allies.
As of the time of the ruling, the administration had still not nominated a permanent candidate to serve as U.S. attorney for the Central District of California. Essayli, a former Republican member of the California Assembly from Riverside, has maintained a high-profile and often polarizing tenure. During his time in office, he has pursued charges against immigrants, activists, and protesters, while dropping other cases involving administration allies.
The government now has five business days to seek a stay of the disqualification order. If Judge Seabright denies that request, the order barring Essayli from the two cases will take effect one week later, unless an appellate court intervenes.
