Bill Essayli has had a lot of job titles over the last 19 months. Interim U.S. Attorney. Acting U.S. Attorney. Special Attorney. First Assistant U.S. Attorney. As of this summer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, too. What he hasn’t had, at any point since his 120-day interim term ran out last July, is the legal authority to run the largest federal judicial district in the country.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright — the Hawaii-based George W. Bush appointee hearing these challenges because every judge in the Central District of California has recused — said so again. Last fall, Seabright ruled that Essayli wasn’t lawfully serving as acting U.S. Attorney, but let him keep running the office as first assistant. That consolation prize is gone:
Bilal A. Essayli—even in his designated roles as a Special Attorney and FAUSA—is unlawfully serving as a “de facto” United States Attorney, and he is disqualified from (1) participating in or supervising these cases, or (2) otherwise supervising any attorneys in the handling of these cases.
The ruling itself wasn’t much of a surprise. Seabright signaled it at the hearing earlier this month. What’s remarkable is how little effort the Justice Department put into avoiding it.
So why is Essayli getting the boot now? Well, to put it bluntly, the Ninth Circuit. In August, it affirmed the disqualification of Sigal Chattah in Nevada, and Chattah’s paperwork wasn’t just similar to Essayli’s. Per Seabright, “the appointment and designation documents for Essayli and Chattah are identical (except for the names and pronouns), and were issued only one day apart.” So, the appeals court also shot down the exact theory that let Essayli keep his office as first assistant: that the Attorney General could delegate him the job’s powers even if he couldn’t hold the job.
That was an argument DOJ built, in part, on Seabright’s own prior opinion. In a footnote, the judge notes that the government cited his ruling to the Ninth Circuit “no less than nine times,” but the Ninth Circuit was not impressed, rejecting Seabright’s prior opinion “on the relevant issues raised in these renewed Motions.”
The government’s fix was a September 23 “revised designation order” from Attorney General Todd Blanche, authorizing Essayli “to exercise certain functions and duties of the office of United States Attorney,” minus anything that “by law may be performed only by a United States Attorney,” and minus three specific powers the Ninth Circuit had flagged. Seabright was not buying it:
To begin, the revised designation order is nothing more than a “boilerplate limitation” stating that Essayli is “not delegated any non-delegable powers,” which Jackson suggests would be “an unsuccessful attempt to avoid running afoul of the FVRA.” … It is the same thing—just with more words—as telling Essayli that he is “not delegated any non-delegable powers.”
As for those three carved-out powers — certifying certain government appeals, certifying certain juvenile prosecutions, and authorizing applications for tax return information — Seabright pointed out that Ninth Circuit precedent already says a first assistant can’t exercise them anyway, so not much of a fix:
And so, withholding the three specific statutory powers mentioned in the revised designation order in reality withholds nothing—these powers could not have been delegated in the first instance. Effectively, the language excluding these functions is mere surplusage—the equivalent of a “boilerplate” delegation to Essayli of all the powers except those that cannot be delegated.
When DOJ tried to lean on a hedge in the Ninth Circuit’s language, Seabright noted that “[t]he government hangs on a thin reed.” And when DOJ argued Blanche was really delegating his own powers as Attorney General, insisting “there is no legal or logical basis” to stop him, Seabright replied, “But there clearly is a basis (both legal and logical) to reject the Attorney General’s delegation of his own powers.”
Seabright landed in the same place the Ninth Circuit did with Chattah, and the Second Circuit did with John Sarcone in Albany: “In sum, Essayli is unlawfully serving as a ‘de facto’ United States Attorney, and is disqualified from participating in or supervising the prosecutions of Ramirez and Tran.”
The defendants once again did not get their indictments tossed, since they were signed by properly appointed AUSAs and there’s been no showing of “substantial prejudice.” But Seabright left a warning there too: “Although, at prong one, circumstances may be moving closer towards ‘flagrant misbehavior,’ Bundy requires both prongs to be satisfied.” That’s judge for “keep it up and see what happens.”
Essayli, for his part, took to X:
Just so there’s no confusion, today’s order is stayed and has no immediate effect. I remain First Assistant U.S. Attorney and continue running the office. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide this matter.
Technically, sure. Under a stipulation between the parties, the disqualification doesn’t take effect until Seabright rules on the stay motion DOJ has already promised to file. But “continue running the office” is a bold thing to post the day a federal judge ruled that running the office is precisely what you’re not allowed to do. In a statement, Essayli added that “[t]he President and the Attorney General have every right to select supervisors within the Justice Department.” They do. It’s called the nomination process. And per Seabright, the President “had not (and still has not) nominated anyone” for the job.
Essayli now joins a roster of administration picks that federal courts booted for making an end run around the confirmation process:
* Alina Habba (District of New Jersey) — ruled unlawful by Chief Judge Matthew Brann in August 2025, affirmed by the Third Circuit; she resigned.
* Sigal Chattah (District of Nevada) — ruled unlawful by Judge David Campbell in September 2025, affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in August.
* Bill Essayli (Central District of California) — ruled unlawful by Judge Seabright in October 2025, and now disqualified even as first assistant.
* Lindsey Halligan (Eastern District of Virginia) — found unlawfully appointed as interim U.S. Attorney by Judge Cameron McGowan Currie in November 2025, taking the Comey and James indictments down with her; she left DOJ in January after Judge David Novak’s order.
* John Sarcone III (Northern District of New York) — ruled unlawful by Judge Lorna Schofield in January, affirmed 2-1 by the Second Circuit in August.
* Ryan Ellison (District of New Mexico) — ruled “not, and was never” validly acting U.S. Attorney by Senior Judge David Nuffer in January, though allowed to stay on as first assistant.
Cert petitions in the Chattah and Sarcone cases are currently pending at the Supreme Court.
Earlier: Even Trump’s Own Judges Agree: Sigal Chattah Isn’t A Real U.S. Attorney
Trump Fires U.S. Attorney After 54 Minutes, Replaces Him With Fake Prosecutor
DOJ Flames Judiciary Over Impertinent Demand For Competent US Attorneys
*Another* U.S. Attorney Disqualified After Failing The ‘Actually Appointed’ Test
Lindsey Halligan Says Her ‘I’m An Illegal Appointment’ T-Shirt Has People Asking A Lot Of Questions Already Answered By Her Shirt
Alina Habba Quits Job She Never Legally Held
A Bad Week For Trump’s Fake U.S. Attorneys
Another Day, Another Fake MAGA Prosecutor
Lindsey Halligan Manages To Lose Two Cases At Once, Which Is Honestly Impressive
Judge Calls Out Trump Appointee For Cosplaying As Federal Prosecutor
Alina Habba Is So Back, Baby
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Bluesky @Kathryn1
The post Bill Essayli Got A New Job Description, But A Judge Says It’s Still The Same Fake Job appeared first on Above the Law.
Bill Essayli has had a lot of job titles over the last 19 months. Interim U.S. Attorney. Acting U.S. Attorney. Special Attorney. First Assistant U.S. Attorney. As of this summer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, too. What he hasn’t had, at any point since his 120-day interim term ran out last July, is the legal authority to run the largest federal judicial district in the country.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright — the Hawaii-based George W. Bush appointee hearing these challenges because every judge in the Central District of California has recused — said so again. Last fall, Seabright ruled that Essayli wasn’t lawfully serving as acting U.S. Attorney, but let him keep running the office as first assistant. That consolation prize is gone:
Bilal A. Essayli—even in his designated roles as a Special Attorney and FAUSA—is unlawfully serving as a “de facto” United States Attorney, and he is disqualified from (1) participating in or supervising these cases, or (2) otherwise supervising any attorneys in the handling of these cases.
The ruling itself wasn’t much of a surprise. Seabright signaled it at the hearing earlier this month. What’s remarkable is how little effort the Justice Department put into avoiding it.
So why is Essayli getting the boot now? Well, to put it bluntly, the Ninth Circuit. In August, it affirmed the disqualification of Sigal Chattah in Nevada, and Chattah’s paperwork wasn’t just similar to Essayli’s. Per Seabright, “the appointment and designation documents for Essayli and Chattah are identical (except for the names and pronouns), and were issued only one day apart.” So, the appeals court also shot down the exact theory that let Essayli keep his office as first assistant: that the Attorney General could delegate him the job’s powers even if he couldn’t hold the job.
That was an argument DOJ built, in part, on Seabright’s own prior opinion. In a footnote, the judge notes that the government cited his ruling to the Ninth Circuit “no less than nine times,” but the Ninth Circuit was not impressed, rejecting Seabright’s prior opinion “on the relevant issues raised in these renewed Motions.”
The government’s fix was a September 23 “revised designation order” from Attorney General Todd Blanche, authorizing Essayli “to exercise certain functions and duties of the office of United States Attorney,” minus anything that “by law may be performed only by a United States Attorney,” and minus three specific powers the Ninth Circuit had flagged. Seabright was not buying it:
To begin, the revised designation order is nothing more than a “boilerplate limitation” stating that Essayli is “not delegated any non-delegable powers,” which Jackson suggests would be “an unsuccessful attempt to avoid running afoul of the FVRA.” … It is the same thing—just with more words—as telling Essayli that he is “not delegated any non-delegable powers.”
As for those three carved-out powers — certifying certain government appeals, certifying certain juvenile prosecutions, and authorizing applications for tax return information — Seabright pointed out that Ninth Circuit precedent already says a first assistant can’t exercise them anyway, so not much of a fix:
And so, withholding the three specific statutory powers mentioned in the revised designation order in reality withholds nothing—these powers could not have been delegated in the first instance. Effectively, the language excluding these functions is mere surplusage—the equivalent of a “boilerplate” delegation to Essayli of all the powers except those that cannot be delegated.
When DOJ tried to lean on a hedge in the Ninth Circuit’s language, Seabright noted that “[t]he government hangs on a thin reed.” And when DOJ argued Blanche was really delegating his own powers as Attorney General, insisting “there is no legal or logical basis” to stop him, Seabright replied, “But there clearly is a basis (both legal and logical) to reject the Attorney General’s delegation of his own powers.”
Seabright landed in the same place the Ninth Circuit did with Chattah, and the Second Circuit did with John Sarcone in Albany: “In sum, Essayli is unlawfully serving as a ‘de facto’ United States Attorney, and is disqualified from participating in or supervising the prosecutions of Ramirez and Tran.”
The defendants once again did not get their indictments tossed, since they were signed by properly appointed AUSAs and there’s been no showing of “substantial prejudice.” But Seabright left a warning there too: “Although, at prong one, circumstances may be moving closer towards ‘flagrant misbehavior,’ Bundy requires both prongs to be satisfied.” That’s judge for “keep it up and see what happens.”
Essayli, for his part, took to X:
Just so there’s no confusion, today’s order is stayed and has no immediate effect. I remain First Assistant U.S. Attorney and continue running the office. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide this matter.
Technically, sure. Under a stipulation between the parties, the disqualification doesn’t take effect until Seabright rules on the stay motion DOJ has already promised to file. But “continue running the office” is a bold thing to post the day a federal judge ruled that running the office is precisely what you’re not allowed to do. In a statement, Essayli added that “[t]he President and the Attorney General have every right to select supervisors within the Justice Department.” They do. It’s called the nomination process. And per Seabright, the President “had not (and still has not) nominated anyone” for the job.
Essayli now joins a roster of administration picks that federal courts booted for making an end run around the confirmation process:
* Alina Habba (District of New Jersey) — ruled unlawful by Chief Judge Matthew Brann in August 2025, affirmed by the Third Circuit; she resigned.
* Sigal Chattah (District of Nevada) — ruled unlawful by Judge David Campbell in September 2025, affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in August.
* Bill Essayli (Central District of California) — ruled unlawful by Judge Seabright in October 2025, and now disqualified even as first assistant.
* Lindsey Halligan (Eastern District of Virginia) — found unlawfully appointed as interim U.S. Attorney by Judge Cameron McGowan Currie in November 2025, taking the Comey and James indictments down with her; she left DOJ in January after Judge David Novak’s order.
* John Sarcone III (Northern District of New York) — ruled unlawful by Judge Lorna Schofield in January, affirmed 2-1 by the Second Circuit in August.
* Ryan Ellison (District of New Mexico) — ruled “not, and was never” validly acting U.S. Attorney by Senior Judge David Nuffer in January, though allowed to stay on as first assistant.
Cert petitions in the Chattah and Sarcone cases are currently pending at the Supreme Court.
Earlier: Even Trump’s Own Judges Agree: Sigal Chattah Isn’t A Real U.S. Attorney
Trump Fires U.S. Attorney After 54 Minutes, Replaces Him With Fake Prosecutor
DOJ Flames Judiciary Over Impertinent Demand For Competent US Attorneys
*Another* U.S. Attorney Disqualified After Failing The ‘Actually Appointed’ Test
Lindsey Halligan Says Her ‘I’m An Illegal Appointment’ T-Shirt Has People Asking A Lot Of Questions Already Answered By Her Shirt
Alina Habba Quits Job She Never Legally Held
A Bad Week For Trump’s Fake U.S. Attorneys
Another Day, Another Fake MAGA Prosecutor
Lindsey Halligan Manages To Lose Two Cases At Once, Which Is Honestly Impressive
Judge Calls Out Trump Appointee For Cosplaying As Federal Prosecutor
Alina Habba Is So Back, Baby
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Bluesky @Kathryn1
