A federal judge has dropped a legal bombshell on a Trump-appointed prosecutor, raising questions about who truly holds the reins of justice in California’s largest federal district.
The controversy centers on Bilal A. “Bill” Essayli, acting U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, whose appointment has been ruled unlawful by U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright, as reported by Newsweek.
This ruling, issued on October 28, isn’t just a slap on the wrist; it strikes at the heart of how the Trump administration has managed key Justice Department posts without Senate confirmation.
Judge Seabright’s 64-page order pulled no punches, declaring that Essayli has been unlawfully serving since his interim term expired.
The court found that Attorney General Pamela Bondi’s attempt to extend his tenure on July 29 by reclassifying him as First Assistant U.S. Attorney lacked any legal grounding under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
That law sets strict limits, 120 days for interim U.S. attorneys, to prevent executive overreach, a principle echoed in similar rulings against Trump-installed prosecutors in New Jersey and Nevada.
Despite the court’s clear directive disqualifying him from performing the duties of U.S. attorney, Essayli remains unshaken, refusing to step aside.
“While I’m still here, I’m not planning to go anywhere,” he told reporters at an NBC news conference in Los Angeles on October 30, dismissing the ruling as mere semantics over titles.
His stance, while bold, sidesteps the deeper issue: a federal judge has explicitly said his authority lacks legal backing, which isn’t just a paperwork problem but a constitutional one.
The Federal Public Defender’s Office, which sought Essayli’s disqualification, welcomed the ruling, stating they were “glad to see the court recognized the invalidity of Mr. Essayli’s appointment” and hoped it would “promote respect for constitutional order,” as reported by NBC Los Angeles.
Yet, their measured tone belies a larger concern: if officials can cling to power despite clear legal rulings, what stops the executive branch from ignoring checks and balances altogether?
Essayli’s appointment saga began after the resignation of U.S. Attorney E. Martin Estrada in January 2025, with his interim role starting on April 2 and set to end on July 31.
While Judge Seabright declined to dismiss indictments signed under Essayli’s watch, noting other authorized assistants were involved, the ruling still casts a shadow over ongoing cases. Defense lawyers may seize on this legal limbo to challenge his involvement, especially in high-profile matters like the Justice Department’s lawsuit against the Orange County Registrar of Voters for alleged voting-rights violations.
For now, Essayli continues to manage daily operations as First Assistant, but the Justice Department faces a choice: appeal to the Ninth Circuit, appoint a new interim or permanent U.S. attorney, or let local judges step in.
The outcome will set a precedent on how far any administration can push the boundaries of acting appointments, a practice that’s long dodged the Senate’s rightful role in confirming top officials. If this loophole isn’t closed, we’re looking at a future where temporary titles become permanent power grabs, undermining the very structure of accountable governance.
