Federal Judge Rules Bill Essayli Illegally Serving as U.S. Attorney

UPDATE: A federal judge has just ruled that Bill Essayli has been unlawfully serving as acting U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, a decision that could have immediate implications for ongoing prosecutions. The ruling was issued on October 29, 2023, by Judge J. Michael Seabright of the Federal District Court in Hawaii.

This development raises urgent questions about the legality of appointments made during the Trump administration. Judge Seabright declared that Essayli has been unlawfully occupying the acting U.S. attorney position since July 29, 2025, violating the Federal Vacancies Reform Act which restricts how long officials can serve without Senate confirmation.

In his statement, Essayli insisted that his role as first assistant U.S. attorney remains unchanged. “For those who didn’t read the entire order, nothing is changing,” he stated. However, the implications of this ruling could be significant for legal proceedings in the district.

“Simply stated: Essayli unlawfully assumed the role of Acting United States Attorney for the Central District of California. He is disqualified from serving in that role,” Judge Seabright emphasized.

The ruling stemmed from motions filed by three defendants seeking to dismiss their indictments and disqualify Essayli. Despite the judge’s decision regarding Essayli’s role, he denied the defendants’ request to dismiss the charges against them, confirming that “the prosecutions remain valid.”

This decision mirrors a troubling trend in recent months, where courts have challenged various Trump-era appointments. Earlier in August 2023, a federal judge ruled that Alina Habba, a former personal attorney for Trump, was illegally serving as acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey after her short interim term expired. Just last month, a federal judge found that Sigal Chattah had also been unlawfully serving in a similar capacity for the District of Nevada.

The legal ramifications of this ruling are developing rapidly. Legal experts are closely monitoring the situation, as it may set a precedent for future appointments and the validity of ongoing cases in similar contexts. The response from the Trump administration and its affiliates remains to be seen, but this latest judicial decision adds fuel to the ongoing scrutiny of executive appointments made without proper legislative approval.

This critical ruling underscores the importance of lawful governance and could impact the way federal appointments are approached moving forward. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, all eyes will be on the Central District of California and other jurisdictions potentially affected by these decisions.

For updates on this developing story, stay tuned as we follow the latest legal challenges and implications stemming from this ruling.