Judge Rules Los Angeles Chief Federal Prosecutor Is Serving Illegally

Judge Rules Los Angeles Chief Federal Prosecutor Is Serving Illegally

2026-10-28 politics

Los Angeles, Wednesday, 28 October 2026.
A federal judge barred Los Angeles’ top prosecutor from two criminal cases after ruling his unconfirmed appointment bypasses federal law, potentially jeopardizing hundreds of pending government enforcement actions.

On Tuesday, 28 October 2026, Senior U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright ruled that Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, is unlawfully serving as a ‘de facto’ U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California [1][2][3][5]. The decision bars Essayli from participating in or supervising two active criminal prosecutions involving defendants Jaime Hector Ramirez and Tu Anh Tran, both charged with federal firearms and stolen property offenses, respectively [1][3][5][6]. Seabright’s order explicitly cites a recent 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Nevada, where the court found that similarly circumvention of Senate confirmation requirements for U.S. Attorney appointments violated federal law [1][3][5][8]. ‘In sum, Essayli is unlawfully serving as a ‘de facto’ United States Attorney,’ Seabright wrote, adding that the revised designation order issued by Attorney General Todd Blanche failed to cure the legal deficiencies [1][3][5][6].

Essayli’s tenure began in April 2025 when then-Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed him as interim U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, a role typically limited to 120 days under federal statute [1][2][3][6]. After the interim period expired in July 2025, Bondi reclassified Essayli as a special attorney and first assistant U.S. attorney, a maneuver Judge Seabright previously deemed unlawful in October 2025 [1][2][3][6]. The Department of Justice (DOJ) attempted to formalize Essayli’s authority in September 2026 through a revised designation order, but Seabright rejected this as ‘identical’ to the improper arrangement used for Nevada prosecutor Sigal Chattah, who was also barred from office by the 9th Circuit in August 2026 [1][2][3][5][8].

The ruling is part of a broader pattern of legal challenges to Trump administration appointments of U.S. Attorneys without Senate confirmation. In December 2025, former New Jersey U.S. Attorney Alina Habba was similarly disqualified, while in January 2026, a judge ruled that John Sarcone unlawfully served as acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York [2][3][6][8]. Defense attorneys, including H. Dean Steward who filed the motion against Essayli, argue that the administration deliberately circumvented legal requirements to install politically aligned prosecutors [2][3][9]. ‘The Trump administration ignored the laws governing the appointment of U.S. attorneys and got caught in Los Angeles,’ Steward stated. ‘Trump and his Department of Justice violated the law again and again in an effort to install minions as chief federal prosecutors’ [2][3][9].

DOJ’s Appeal Strategy and Future Implications

In response to the ruling, the DOJ announced plans to seek a stay pending appeal, delaying the disqualification’s immediate effect for up to five business days from the 26 October 2026 decision [1][2][3][5]. If the stay is denied, Essayli’s disqualification would take effect one week later, potentially disrupting hundreds of pending cases across the Central District of California, which serves nearly 20 million people across seven counties [3][6]. Essayli, a former Republican state assemblyman and ally of the president, has vowed to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, asserting that the president and attorney general retain the right to select supervisors within the DOJ [1][2][3][5][6]. ‘Ultimately, this question will be decided by the Supreme Court, and I look forward to serving in my current role until then,’ Essayli stated [1][2][3][5]. Legal experts warn that if the Supreme Court declines to intervene, the ruling could embolden defense attorneys nationwide to challenge the authority of similarly appointed prosecutors, creating systemic uncertainty for federal enforcement actions [alert! ‘DOJ has not confirmed whether additional appeals are pending in other districts’][2][3][9].

Sources


Federal Prosecution Judicial Ruling