Judge finds Los Angeles’ top federal prosecutor illegally employed, bars him from two cases

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Bill Essayli was illegally serving as Los Angeles’ top federal prosecutor and ordered him to be disqualified from overseeing two criminal cases, rejecting the Justice Department’s latest efforts to preserve his authority.

U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright, however, delayed the disqualifications from taking effect while he considers an anticipated government request for a stay pending appeal.

Although the order applies to two prosecutions, Seabright rejected the legal arrangement that allows Essayli to continue leading the office under the title of First Assistant United States Attorney. He concluded that the Justice Department had illegally delegated powers so broad that Essayli was in effect serving as U.S. Attorney.

“In summary, Essayli is unlawfully acting as the ‘de facto’ United States Attorney,” Seabright wrote.

After learning of Seabright’s decision from the Times, Essayli said Tuesday afternoon that his office expected it and that the case “will be decided by the Supreme Court.” In a follow-up email, he said: “I look forward to my current position until then. »

H. Dean Steward, a defense attorney who filed a new motion in August challenging Essayli’s authority, called the ruling “a victory for the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution.”

“The Trump administration ignored the laws governing the appointment of U.S. attorneys and got caught in Los Angeles,” he said in an emailed statement. “Trump and his Justice Department have repeatedly violated the law in an effort to install minions as chief federal prosecutors.”

The dispute is part of a national battle over the Trump administration’s efforts to appoint chosen prosecutors without Senate confirmation. Alina Habba resigned as New Jersey’s federal prosecutor in December after an appeals court ruled her appointment was illegal. In Virginia, a judge’s finding that Lindsey Halligan was illegally appointed led to the dismissal of indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Atty. General Letitia James.

In his ruling Tuesday, Seabright declined to dismiss the indictments against the defendants in the two cases he had barred Essayli from overseeing. Jaime Hector Ramirez and Tu Anh Tran have not demonstrated the substantial harm required to obtain that relief, he said in response to lawyers’ requests to dismiss the indictments. His order prohibits Essayli from participating in or supervising their cases, including supervising the attorneys handling them.

Seabright ruled last year that Essayli was “not acting lawfully” as acting U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, but allowed him to continue exercising his authority as special counsel and first assistant U.S. attorney.

The new ruling follows a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejecting a similar arrangement for Nevada Attorney Sigal Chattah. The appeals court ruled that the Justice Department cannot keep an official who has not been confirmed by the Senate as head of a U.S. attorney’s office simply by giving him a different title and full powers of that office.

The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Nevada decision, arguing that federal law allows the attorney general to delegate the powers of a vacant position and appoint a new first assistant as acting chief. The Supreme Court has not said whether it will take up the case.

The Justice Department sought to respond to the 9th Circuit’s decision with a revised delegation of authority expressly excluding certain powers reserved for a U.S. attorney. At a hearing on October 13, Assistant US Atty. Alexander Robbins argued before Seabright that the revised delegation placed Essayli’s authority on the admissible side of the line drawn by the appeals court.

Seabright reasoned that the revision made no significant difference because these powers could not have been delegated to Essayli in the first place.

“Denying the three specific statutory powers mentioned in the revised designation order actually takes away nothing,” Seabright wrote.

A former Republican member of the California Assembly from Riverside, Essayli has used his position to act as one of Trump’s fiercest legal foot soldiers. He has pursued criminal charges against protesters, activists and immigrants, while dropping cases involving administration allies and supporting lawsuits challenging transgender and environmental policies in California.

Essayli was sworn in as acting U.S. attorney in April 2025. By the time he reached the 120-day limit on that role, he resigned, then-Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi named him special prosecutor and tapped him as first assistant with the goal of making him acting U.S. attorney.

Seabright rejected the move last year. But the judge first allowed him to oversee the prosecution in his other capacity — an arrangement that the 9th Circuit’s subsequent ruling undermined.

Trump had still not nominated anyone to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California as of Tuesday’s decision, Seabright noted.

At the Oct. 13 hearing, Robbins said the government would appeal any recusal decision and warned of “the chaotic practical effects” of an order taking effect without suspension.

Under the timeline agreed to by Seabright, prosecutors have five business days after the ruling to request a stay pending appeal. If he refuses this request, the disqualifications will take effect one week later, subject to further orders from him or an appeals court.