A federal judge’s ruling in Los Angeles this week marked the third time in recent weeks that a court has found one of President Donald Trump’s temporary U.S. attorneys to have served unlawfully.
The decision adds to mounting questions about the legality of several top prosecutors appointed under Attorney General Pam Bondi’s direction and could have implications for ongoing cases brought by Trump-backed officials in multiple jurisdictions.
Newsweek reached out to the Department of Justice for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Wednesday.
Why It Matters
The wave of judicial rulings disqualifying Trump-appointed U.S. attorneys goes beyond questions of personnel—it strikes at the foundation of how federal prosecutors gain lawful authority.
By finding that Bondi and the Department of Justice overstepped limits on temporary appointments, judges have raised constitutional concerns about executive power, the integrity of federal prosecutions, and the stability of the DOJ itself.
The outcome of these challenges will determine not only whether recent indictments survive, but also how firmly future administrations must adhere to the Senate’s confirmation role and the rule of law that underpins it.
Judge Rules Essayli Served Illegally
In a 64-page order issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright held that Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor for the Central District of California, “unlawfully assumed the role of Acting United States Attorney” and is “disqualified from participating” in criminal prosecutions in that capacity.
Seabright, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, temporarily assigned to hear the case from Hawaii, ruled that Bondi’s attempt to extend Essayli’s tenure beyond the statutory 120-day limit violated federal appointment law.
The ruling stems from challenges filed by three defendants indicted after Essayli’s interim term expired in July.
Their attorneys argued that the indictments were invalid because Essayli had continued to serve without lawful authority. While agreeing that his service violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), Seabright declined to dismiss the indictments, noting that other career prosecutors had cosigned them.
“Despite Essayli’s unlawful service as Acting United States Attorney, he remains the First Assistant United States Attorney for the Central District,” the order stated.
In a post on X, Essayli insisted the decision would not disrupt operations.
“Nothing is changing,” he wrote. “I continue serving as the top federal prosecutor in the Central District of California. It’s an honor and privilege to serve President Trump and Attorney General Bondi.”
Pattern of Judicial Pushback Emerges
Seabright’s ruling follows similar findings in New Jersey and Nevada, where federal judges determined that Trump-appointed interim U.S. Attorneys Alina Habba and Sigal Chattah were also serving illegally after their temporary appointments lapsed.
In August, U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann concluded that Habba “is not lawfully holding the office of United States Attorney” and placed her actions on hold pending appeal. Brann’s decision emphasized that Bondi’s use of procedural maneuvers to retain Habba violated both the FVRA and the statutory 120-day limit on interim service.
Together, the rulings suggest a pattern of judicial resistance to Bondi’s efforts to install unconfirmed loyalists in top prosecutorial roles.
Federal law allows the attorney general to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for up to 120 days. After that, the district’s judges may appoint a replacement until the Senate confirms a nominee.
The courts in each case found that the DOJ bypassed this process, extending interim appointments without Senate approval or judicial selection.
The issue could soon reach Virginia, where former Trump attorney Lindsey Halligan—appointed earlier this month to lead prosecutions in the Eastern District—faces a motion to disqualify her in a high-profile case against former FBI Director James Comey.
Comey’s defense argues that Halligan’s appointment was “unlawful” and that she lacks the authority to pursue charges that he lied to Congress. U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie is expected to hear that challenge in November.
Wider Fallout for Trump’s Justice Department
The disqualifications underscore the broader challenge facing the Trump administration’s Justice Department, which has relied heavily on temporary appointments amid prolonged Senate confirmation battles. As of late September, only two of the nation’s 93 U.S. attorneys have been confirmed by the Senate.
Legal scholars say that relying on unvetted interim prosecutors undermines both institutional continuity and public confidence.
“The confirmation process lends stability to the department and to each district,” former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman told Politico last month. “There’s a kind of leadership oomph that a confirmed presidential appointee has.”
While courts have declined to throw out existing indictments, multiple judges have now reached similar conclusions, leaving the administration facing an urgent question: how to keep the DOJ functioning within the limits of the law.
What People Are Saying
President Donald Trump told Republican senators at the White House on October 21: “You know, I have 10 U.S. attorneys who are phenomenal, and the problem is, they’re not going to ever be confirmed, I guess. I put them in, they’ll be there for three or four months, whatever it is, and then they have to leave,”
He added: “Anytime you have a Democrat senator…they’ll say, because of the time we’re in, ‘we’re not approving that person.’…This is not constitutional. And I really, I hope you can look at that blue-slip thing.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi, directly addressing her criticism of federal judges in New Jersey, said in July: “This Department of Justice does not tolerate rogue judges—especially when they threaten the President’s core Article II powers.”
Anne Joseph O’Connell, a professor at Stanford Law School, told Government Executive in July 2023: “The current Vacancies Act needs to be amended—to settle ambiguities that have generated litigation and to encourage the use of the traditional appointments process of nominations and confirmations.”
What Happens Next
The DOJ is expected to appeal Seabright’s ruling disqualifying Essayli, likely taking the case to the Ninth Circuit, while district judges in California may use their authority to appoint a lawful replacement under federal statute. In the meantime, defendants in other cases are preparing similar challenges, particularly in Virginia, where Halligan’s authority faces review next month.
The Senate may also face pressure to confirm more U.S. attorney nominees to restore stability across districts.
However, until the appeals are resolved, the affected offices will continue operating under interim leadership, with every decision by Trump-appointed prosecutors facing heightened legal and political scrutiny.
