AI-generated illustration; not a photograph of the reported event.
- calendar_today October 28, 2026
Federal Judge Issues Ruling on U.S. Prosecutor in Los Angeles
On Tuesday, a federal judge determined that Bill Essayli, a Republican, is not legally serving as the chief U.S. prosecutor in Los Angeles. The ruling represents a significant challenge to the Trump administration's approach in extending the tenures of handpicked acting U.S. attorneys beyond the 120-day limit stipulated by federal law.
Background of Essayli’s Appointment
Bill Essayli, a former state lawmaker and federal prosecutor known for conservative positions and criticism of California policies, was appointed last year by the Trump administration. He became Acting U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California—a region that encompasses Los Angeles. Shortly before the expiration of his 120-day interim term, then-U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi reassigned him as First Assistant U.S. Attorney, but no new acting U.S. attorney was named, effectively leaving Essayli as the top federal prosecutor in the district.
Federal Judge Cites Violation of Law
U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright found that Essayli was unlawfully serving as a “de facto” United States Attorney. The judge’s order will not take effect until the court rules on the government’s motion for a stay while an appeal is pending. Judge Seabright wrote that Bondi’s appointment and designation of Essayli “is identical” to her appointment of Sigal Chattah in Nevada—a move recently found improper by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Implications for Appointment Legality
The ruling comes after federal courts have examined the legality of such appointments. Judge Seabright referenced an August appeals court decision concluding that Trump’s pick for U.S. attorney in Nevada, Sigal Chattah, was unlawfully appointed. The judge noted that efforts by the latest U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche to revise Essayli’s duties did not effectively distinguish his position from the earlier, unlawful appointments.
Responses from Essayli and the Administration
Essayli stated that he disagrees with the court’s ruling, emphasizing the authority of the president and attorney general to select Justice Department supervisors. He added, “Ultimately, this question will be decided by the Supreme Court, and I look forward to serving in my current role until then.”
Broader Impact and Context
The case is part of broader legal challenges to the Trump administration’s strategy of bypassing Senate confirmation for appointments of U.S. attorneys. Similar rulings have occurred in New Jersey and New York, where judges found that interim U.S. attorneys were also serving unlawfully.
Essayli’s tenure has been marked by high-profile federal disputes, especially with California authorities on contentious topics such as health care fraud, noncitizen voting allegations, and state policies protecting immigrants without legal status. California has pushed back against federal challenges to its election practices, including disputes over the counting of certain ballots.
This federal judge ruling underscores continuing questions over the appointment legality of federal prosecutors and the confirmation process for top U.S. attorneys.
Source: abcnews.com.
