A federal judge has ruled that Bill Essayli, President Trump’s choice to lead federal prosecutions in Los Angeles, is unlawfully serving as the region’s top federal prosecutor. The October 27 decision found that the Justice Department improperly allowed Essayli to exercise the authority of a U.S. attorney despite legal restrictions on temporary appointments.
U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright determined that Essayli was effectively performing the duties of a U.S. attorney while officially holding the title of first assistant U.S. attorney. The judge ordered Essayli disqualified from participating in or supervising two criminal prosecutions, concluding that changes to his title and assigned responsibilities did not resolve the legal problems surrounding his authority.
Essayli was initially appointed interim U.S. attorney for California’s Central District in April 2025. Federal law limits such temporary appointments to 120 days, and permanent U.S. attorneys generally require presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. Before that temporary period expired, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Essayli as a special attorney and designated him first assistant U.S. attorney, allowing him to continue leading the office. A federal judge subsequently rejected his authority to serve as acting U.S. attorney but initially permitted him to retain certain supervisory responsibilities.
The latest ruling follows an August decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit involving Sigal Chattah, another Trump administration prosecutor whose appointment in Nevada was found unlawful. Seabright concluded that the Justice Department’s revised delegation of authority to Essayli did not meaningfully distinguish his arrangement from the one rejected by the appeals court. However, the judge declined to dismiss the indictments in the two Los Angeles criminal cases and delayed enforcement of Essayli’s disqualification while the government has an opportunity to seek a stay pending appeal.
Essayli disputes the decision, maintaining that the president and attorney general have the authority to choose supervisors within the Justice Department. He expects the dispute to reach the Supreme Court and intends to remain in his current role while the legal challenges continue. The ruling adds to a broader series of court decisions examining whether the administration can retain its preferred federal prosecutors through temporary appointments and alternative job titles without completing the appointment process established by law.
