A federal judge in California has declared the appointment of the acting U.S. attorney for the Central District unlawful. This ruling emphasizes the necessity of Senate confirmation for such positions. U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright issued a 64-page order explaining that Bilal Essayli, who stepped down as interim U.S. attorney in July, had been unlawfully serving in this capacity.
Key Details of the Ruling
Judge Seabright highlighted that Essayli’s role was invalid due to the absence of a Senate confirmation. The Central District of California is the largest federal court district in the United States, serving seven counties, including Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino.
Judge’s Findings
- Essayli was deemed disqualified from executing duties as Acting United States Attorney.
- The judge allowed ongoing cases Essayli was involved in because they were signed by other attorneys.
- Essayli can still hold the title of “First Assistant United States Attorney.”
Despite the ruling, Essayli took to social media, asserting that the decision would not impede his functioning as the top federal prosecutor. He expressed commitment to serving the interests of President Trump and Attorney General Bondi.
Implications for the Trump Administration
This ruling marks another challenge for the Trump administration regarding interim appointments. The administration’s attempts to sidestep the 120-day rule have faced judicial scrutiny. Earlier, similar decisions affected officials in Nevada and New Jersey, reinforcing the challenges associated with appointing acting U.S. attorneys without Senate approval.
Related Developments
In addition to California, the legality of acting U.S. attorney appointments has been questioned in other states:
- Nevada: Sigal Chattah’s appointment was deemed illegal, though the ruling is currently on pause pending an appeal.
- New Jersey: Alina Habba was found to be unlawfully appointed, with an appeals court reviewing the case.
- Virginia: Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as U.S. attorney is set for judicial review next month.
Issues surrounding these appointments reflect broader political tensions and the scrutiny faced by the Trump administration when navigating personnel decisions without Senate confirmations.
