Judge Rules Trump-Appointed Prosecutor Serving Unlawfully
Left 75%
Center 0%
Right 25%
3 left · 0 center · 1 right
What happened
U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright ruled Tuesday that Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in the Central District of California, is unlawfully serving as a “de facto” United States Attorney and disqualified him from participating in or supervising two criminal prosecutions in which his appointment had been challenged. The order will not take effect until the court rules on the Justice Department’s motion for a stay pending appeal. Essayli, a former Republican California state lawmaker, was appointed interim U.S. attorney in April 2025 without a presidential nomination or Senate confirmation; after the 120-day statutory limit expired, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi designated him first assistant U.S. attorney and special attorney, and no other acting U.S. attorney was named. Seabright had previously found in October 2025 that Essayli could not lawfully serve as acting U.S. attorney but allowed him to continue under the other titles; after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in August held a similar Nevada arrangement for Sigal Chattah unlawful, Seabright concluded that a later revised designation by Attorney General Todd Blanche still left Essayli occupying the vacant office. Essayli said he disagrees with the order, that the president and attorney general have every right to select Justice Department supervisors, and that the question will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 4 articles
4 of 4 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report. Bill Essayli denied part of it on the record.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 4 of 4
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Michael Seabright, Bill Essayli, H Dean Steward and U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 4 of 4
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: court ruling
- Credits another outlet 0 of 4
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 4
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- On-record denial 1
- A named person or institution says the claim, or part of it, is not true. It is on the record — someone signed their name to it — but it is not confirmation, so it never counts toward On the record. Criticizing or dissenting from a decision is not a denial. The count is how many people or institutions deny it; each is listed with the first article that carried the denial. Here: Bill Essayli (Fox News, Oct 28, 05:22 UTC)
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 28, 01:52 UTC by The Guardian, naming its source. First document in the first report, from The Guardian (court ruling).
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Left-leaning coverage is more complete on how far these appointment fights have already spread. The Guardian and ABC News both report that Alina Habba was similarly disqualified from the top prosecutor job in New Jersey. Right-leaning coverage does not mention that ruling, so a reader can treat Tuesday's Los Angeles order as a one-off personnel fight rather than part of a wider appointments dispute.
The appointment order is tied to protest and immigration prosecutions only in left-leaning coverage and is absent from the right-leaning account. The Guardian closes by describing Essayli as "aggressively targeting immigrants" and prosecuting protesters, a pairing right-leaning coverage does not make.
Which two prosecutions triggered the disqualification, and does the order open the rest of his docket to the same challenge?
Bottom line
Miss Alina Habba and Tuesday's order looks like a Los Angeles problem. Fox News is the write-up that never names her.
The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Alina Habba was similarly disqualified from the top prosecutor job in New Jersey
- A judge ruled John Sarcone was not lawfully serving as acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York
- After disqualification, Alina Habba stayed on as a senior adviser at the Justice Department
- The administration never appointed another acting U.S. attorney, effectively making Essayli the top prosecutor
- Defense lawyer H. Dean Steward said the Trump administration ignored the laws governing appointment of U.S. attorneys
The Left View
Left-leaning sources frame the ruling as a check on administration efforts to keep handpicked prosecutors in office without Senate confirmation, which ABC News notes generally requires bipartisan support. The Guardian describes Essayli as a Trump ally whose office has pursued cases aligning with the Maga agenda, including aggressive immigration prosecutions, cases against protesters, and a campaign alleging thousands of California registered voters are “likely non-citizens,” which state election officials have opposed. Defense lawyer H. Dean Steward, who challenged Essayli’s position, called the decision a “victory for the rule of law and the US constitution” and said the administration “ignored the laws governing the appointment of US attorneys” and “violated the law again and again in an effort to install minions as chief federal prosecutors.” Coverage places the case alongside similar findings against other interim U.S. attorneys, including Alina Habba in New Jersey.
The Right View
Right-leaning coverage reports the disqualification while stressing that it is not immediately effective and that Essayli expects the Supreme Court to decide the question. Fox News highlights his statement that the president and attorney general “have every right to select supervisors within the Justice Department” and situates the ruling against his work challenging California over more than 20,000 registered voters the administration says are likely noncitizens. The outlet quotes Essayli calling that litigation “on the forefront of the administration’s battle to fight for election integrity” and saying, “We wanna stop illegal voting. We don’t wanna chase it later.” Coverage notes Blanche’s revised designation aimed at distinguishing Essayli’s role from the Nevada arrangement the 9th Circuit rejected, and that Essayli answered questions about Seabright’s order with: “That case will be decided by the Supreme Court.”
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that multiple federal courts, including the 9th Circuit in the parallel Nevada case, have found that successive title changes cannot lawfully keep an unconfirmed appointee in de facto command of a U.S. attorney’s office past the 120-day statutory limit, and Seabright concluded Blanche’s revised designation was still materially the same as the arrangement already deemed improper. The right’s strongest argument is that selecting supervisors inside the Justice Department is a core executive function, Essayli does not formally occupy a Senate-confirmed office, and the dispute remains live on appeal with the administration maintaining he can serve until the Supreme Court rules. The central unresolved tension is whether an unconfirmed official who continues to run a vacant U.S. attorney’s office through “first assistant” and “special attorney” designations is exercising lawful executive personnel authority or unlawfully evading the Appointments Clause and the 120-day limit on interim U.S. attorneys.
4 sources
- Federal judge disqualifies Trump-appointed prosecutor for ‘unlawfully serving’ in role
- Federal judge rules top US prosecutor in Los Angeles isn't legally serving
- Top federal prosecutor in LA not legally serving, judge rules
- Federal judge rules Bill Essayli unlawfully serving as de facto US attorney in California
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.