Judge rules Bill Essayli is serving unlawfully as 'de facto' U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, disqualifies him in two prosecutions

A federal judge ruled Tuesday, Oct. 27, that Bill Essayli is unlawfully leading the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California, which covers Los Angeles. Senior U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright wrote that Essayli “is unlawfully serving as a ‘de facto’ United States Attorney,” The Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times reported.¹²

The ruling disqualifies Essayli from taking part in or supervising two prosecutions, United States v. Ramirez, No. 5:25-cr-264, and United States v. Tran, No. 8:25-cr-250. Seabright declined to dismiss the indictments, finding the defendants had not shown the substantial prejudice that remedy requires, the Times reported.²

The disqualification is on hold

In a separate order the same day, Seabright wrote that “the order disqualifying Mr. Essayli in the above-captioned cases shall not take immediate effect.” The government has five business days to move for a stay pending appeal; any opposition is due within eight business days and any reply within 10. If the government does not move in time, the disqualification takes effect one week after the order. If the court denies a stay, it takes effect one week after that ruling, subject to further orders.³

What the court found

Seabright heard arguments Oct. 13 on a renewed defense motion to dismiss and to disqualify Essayli in the Ramirez case and a defense motion for reconsideration in the Tran case, then took both under submission.⁴ The judge found that then-Attorney General Pam Bondi's 2025 appointment of Essayli as a special attorney and first assistant U.S. attorney was “identical” to her appointment of Sigal Chattah in Nevada, which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found unlawful in August, the AP reported. He wrote that “nothing in the revised designation order materially distinguishes it” from the Chattah order, referring to a Sept. 23 order by Attorney General Todd Blanche that withheld some powers from Essayli.¹⁵ “Withholding the three specific statutory powers mentioned in the revised designation order in reality withholds nothing,” Seabright wrote, according to the Times.²

Tuesday's ruling is separate from an earlier one. In October 2025, Seabright found Essayli had served as acting U.S. attorney longer than federal law allows but let him remain as first assistant, the AP reported.¹

What each side says

Justice Department: In its Sept. 23 opposition, the government argued that the 9th Circuit's decision in United States v. Jackson, the Chattah case, “does not require that relief,” that the revised order addressed that ruling, and that the motions to dismiss should be denied. It asked in the alternative for a stay pending Supreme Court review.⁵ After the ruling, Essayli said, “We respectfully disagree with the court's order,” City News Service reported.⁶ He told the AP the president and attorney general “have every right to select supervisors within the Justice Department” and said, “Ultimately, this question will be decided by the Supreme Court, and I look forward to serving in my current role until then.”¹

Defense: Federal public defenders in the Ramirez case argued in their Sept. 4 motion that the delegation to Essayli was invalid and that “Essayli has not in fact disavowed any powers.”⁷ H. Dean Steward, the defense attorney in the Tran case, called the ruling “a victory for the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution,” the Times and City News Service reported.²⁶

What the records do not show

• SignalData could not open the main Oct. 27 ruling; its text is reported here as quoted by news outlets. The stay order, the hearing minutes and the parties' filings were opened directly.
• The stay order does not say whether the government has filed its stay motion.³
• The ruling, as reported, applies to two cases; the records do not show its effect on other prosecutions in the district.
• The records reviewed do not show whether or when the Supreme Court will take up the question.