Court Removes Trump-Appointed US Attorney from Multiple Criminal Cases
A federal judge has disqualified acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli from several criminal cases in Southern California. This decision, made on Tuesday, follows a determination that Essayli exceeded his allowed time in office. U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright ruled in favor of defense lawyers in three cases, stating that Essayli has unlawfully served as acting U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California since July 29.
Court’s Ruling on Trump-Appointed U.S. Attorney
Despite the disqualification, Judge Seabright allowed Essayli to continue serving as First Assistant United States Attorney, leaving him as the top prosecutor in his office. In a statement posted on social media, Essayli expressed his intention to continue supporting the agenda of former President Donald Trump, asserting that “nothing is changing.”
Background on Essayli’s Appointment
This ruling is part of a broader challenge to the Trump administration’s attempts to extend the tenure of appointed U.S. attorneys beyond the legally established 120-day limit. The law states that if a permanent U.S. Attorney is not nominated and confirmed by the Senate within this timeframe, federal judges can appoint an interim attorney.
- Essayli’s appointment was made by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi in March.
- He was serving as an interim U.S. attorney following the resignation of President Biden’s appointee.
- California Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla have criticized his appointment.
Legal Precedents and Challenges
Recent court actions have highlighted concerns about other acting U.S. attorneys as well:
- In September, a judge ruled that Sigal Chattah, acting U.S. Attorney of Nevada, served illegally.
- Alina Habba, acting U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, was disqualified in August under similar scrutiny.
Essayli, a former federal prosecutor and Republican California Assemblymember, has been a vocal critic of California’s immigration policies and has aggressively prosecuted protests against heightened immigration enforcement by the Trump administration.
The lawsuit that led to Essayli’s disqualification was initiated by three individuals facing federal firearms charges. They sought dismissals of their indictments due to the legal status of Essayli’s appointment. The judge ruled that these indictments could continue, despite the challenges posed to Essayli’s authority.
Implications of the Ruling
With this ruling, the landscape for U.S. Attorney appointments continues to evolve amid challenges to the appropriateness of acting appointees in federal positions. The legal ramifications highlight the complexities of federal law in managing executive branch vacancies, particularly those requiring Senate confirmation.
