A federal judge has disqualified Bill Essayli —the acting US attorney for Southern California — from overseeing multiple criminal prosecutions. US District Judge J. Michael Seabright ruled that Essayli violated the law by remaining in office after the 120-day cut-off. This ruling emphasizes the need to comply with the federal guidelines. This decision lands another major punch to the Trump administration. It thwarts their efforts to keep selected acting attorneys in office indefinitely without getting Senate confirmations.
Bill Essayli, the former acting US attorney who had been appointed US attorney of the central district of california during the trump administration. His authority ran out in July. And he’s yet to be confirmed through the US Senate since his confirmation. His refusal to recuse himself led to a judicial decision against him. His disqualification has immediate consequences on his oversight of three such criminal prosecutions. This is a dangerous precedent that casts grave doubt over the legality of his actions then.
In issuing his decision, Judge Seabright highlighted the character of Essayli’s service.
“Simply stated: Essayli unlawfully assumed the role of Acting United States Attorney for the Central District of California,” – US District Judge J. Michael Seabright
The judge’s ruling is a welcome respite, yet it is reminiscent of other decisions across the country in recent months. Earlier in August, Trump lawyer Alina Habba was disqualified from serving as temporary US attorney in New Jersey. Then, in September, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration’s choice for Nevada’s acting US attorney – Sigal Chattah – was serving illegally. This troubling pattern of behavior is particularly unusual amongst judges at the federal level. They’ve begun to look more carefully at the appointments of acting US attorneys without Senate confirmation.
Bill Essayli’s office was unable to respond right away to inquiries asking for comment on the disqualification. The decision raises concerns about the potential consequences of temporary appointments. It casts a positive light on the necessity to adhere to legal restrictions meant to ensure accountability in federal appointments.
The ruling further illustrates the continuing discord over presidential appointments and the authority given to acting officials absent Senate confirmation. Legal action and challenges continue to play out on the ground. No way to know how many more acting attorneys will have this sort of scrutiny in the months ahead.