Federal Court Rules Bill Essayli Unlawfully Serving as U.S. Attorney

BREAKING: A federal court has ruled that Bill Essayli has been unlawfully serving as the acting U.S. attorney for the Central District of California since late July 2023. The decision was issued on October 29 by Judge J. Michael Seabright of the Federal District Court in Hawaii, marking a significant legal development that could impact ongoing prosecutions in the region.

Judge Seabright declared that Essayli “is not lawfully serving as Acting United States Attorney for the Central District of California,” following motions by three defendants who sought to dismiss their indictments and disqualify him. Despite the ruling, the implications remain somewhat unclear, as the judge noted that Essayli could continue to perform his duties as first assistant U.S. attorney.

In response to the ruling, Essayli stated, “For those who didn’t read the entire order, nothing is changing. I continue serving as the top federal prosecutor in the Central District of California.” His remarks reflect his commitment to maintaining his role despite the court’s decision.

The controversy surrounding Essayli’s appointment stems from actions taken during the Trump administration. He was initially sworn in on April 2, 2023, for a 120-day term. As that term neared its end on July 31, 2023, Pam Bondi, the Attorney General at the time, appointed Essayli as a special attorney, effective upon his resignation as interim U.S. attorney.

In his ruling, Judge Seabright emphasized that Essayli’s assumption of the acting role violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which restricts how long federal officials can serve without Senate approval. “Simply stated: Essayli unlawfully assumed the role of Acting United States Attorney for the Central District of California. He has been unlawfully serving in that capacity since his resignation from the interim role on July 29, 2023,” Seabright stated.

Despite this ruling, the judge denied the defendants’ requests to dismiss their indictments, affirming that “the prosecutions remain valid.” This decision adds another layer to the ongoing scrutiny of the Trump administration’s appointments to high-ranking positions without legislative oversight.

This ruling follows similar decisions earlier this year, including a case involving Alina Habba, a former personal attorney to Trump, who was deemed to have unlawfully served as acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey. Additionally, Sigal Chattah was ruled to have been unlawfully serving as Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada. Both cases are currently under appeal.

As legal battles continue to unfold, this latest ruling raises urgent questions about the legitimacy of federal appointments and the impact on ongoing legal proceedings. Stakeholders and the public are urged to stay tuned for further updates as this situation develops.