Bill Essayli Photo credit: REUTERS/Daniel Cole
“In sum, Essayli is unlawfully serving as a ‘de facto’ United States Attorney,” Seabright wrote, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Because the withheld powers could not lawfully have been delegated to Essayli in the first place, he found that the revision made no meaningful difference. CBS News reported that the government has five business days to file that request, and that the disqualifications would take effect one week later if the request is denied, unless a higher court intervenes. The Justice Department later revised Essayli’s delegation of authority, excluding certain powers that federal law reserves for a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney. The Los Angeles Times reported that President Trump had still not nominated anyone to serve as U.S. attorney for the Central District of California as of Tuesday’s ruling.
Seabright said the defendants had not shown the substantial prejudice needed to justify dismissing the indictments. “Withholding the three specific statutory powers mentioned in the revised designation order in reality withholds nothing,” the judge wrote, according to the Los Angeles Times. The Supreme Court has not yet said whether it will hear the case.
Judge Seabright ordered that Essayli be disqualified from participating in or supervising two criminal prosecutions, including overseeing the lawyers working on those matters. However, the judge paused that disqualification while the government prepares its expected request for a stay pending appeal. That distinction matters. The judge found a problem with Essayli’s authority, but he did not conclude that the underlying criminal cases must collapse. In other words, the ruling removes Essayli from a supervisory role in two prosecutions, but it leaves the charges themselves intact for now. Government lawyers argued that this change placed Essayli’s authority on the permissible side of the legal line. Judge Seabright was not persuaded. The ruling also follows a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in a similar Nevada case involving prosecutor Sigal Chattah. That appeals court held that the Justice Department cannot keep an unconfirmed official in charge of a U.S. attorney’s office simply by changing the person’s title while giving them the full powers of the job. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to review the Nevada decision, arguing that federal law permits the attorney general to delegate the powers of a vacant office and install a first assistant as its acting leader. The Los Angeles case is part of a broader national dispute over how the Trump administration has installed chosen prosecutors without Senate confirmation. The Los Angeles Times noted that former New Jersey prosecutor Alina Habba stepped down after an appeals court found her appointment unlawful. In Virginia, a judge’s finding that Lindsey Halligan was unlawfully appointed led to the dismissal of indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Those cases have made the question of temporary prosecutor appointments unusually consequential. For now, the immediate consequence in Los Angeles is narrow but consequential. Essayli remains in his role, but a federal judge has found that his authority to lead the office is legally flawed. If the government fails to obtain a stay, he will be barred from the Ramirez and Tran cases, although the office itself will continue operating.
The ruling does not mean Essayli has been removed from office today.
“Ultimately, this question will be decided by the Supreme Court , and I look forward to serving in my current role until then,” Essayli said, according to CBS News. Essayli responded to the decision by saying that his office respectfully disagreed with the order. He argued that the president and attorney general have the right to choose supervisors within the Justice Department. His comments make clear that the administration views the issue as far from settled and expects it to move toward the nation’s highest court.