Federal Judge Michael Seabright ruled Tuesday that Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in southern California, is "unlawfully serving" and barred him from overseeing two criminal prosecutions where defense attorneys challenged his authority. The order does not take immediate effect, and the Department of Justice has announced it will appeal. The ruling is the latest chapter in a sustained legal battle over the Trump administration's strategy of rotating job titles to keep Essayli in office without Senate confirmation. Essayli, a former Republican state lawmaker and Trump ally, became interim US attorney in April 2025 without a formal presidential nomination — sidestepping the standard confirmation process. When his interim appointment expired last July, the administration redesignated him as "acting" US attorney, then "first assistant" after a judge previously ruled his service unlawful. Seabright found that none of these title changes cured the underlying constitutional defect. The judge's order drew directly from an August 2026 Ninth Circuit ruling against a similarly positioned Nevada DOJ leader, applying that higher court's reasoning to Essayli's case. The appellate precedent narrows the administration's room to maneuver in the western states, though Essayli's statement explicitly invoked the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, signaling the administration views this as a winnable fight at the highest level. Essayli is not an isolated case. Alina Habba, Trump's former personal lawyer, was similarly disqualified from the top prosecutor role in New Jersey in December, though she remained as a senior adviser at DOJ. The pattern reveals a systematic approach: install politically aligned prosecutors without Senate scrutiny, absorb lower-court losses, and rely on appellate delay to maintain operational control in the interim. While the legal fight plays out, Essayli has used the office aggressively. He has launched a campaign alleging "voter fraud" by claiming thousands of California registered voters are "likely non-citizens" and pushing to set aside their ballots — efforts California election officials have forcefully opposed. He has also prioritized immigration enforcement and prosecution of protesters, cases that align closely with the MAGA policy agenda. Defense attorney H. Dean Steward, who brought the challenge, called the decision "a victory for the rule of law and the US constitution," accusing the administration of repeatedly violating appointment law "in an effort to install minions as chief federal prosecutors." The framing is blunt but structurally accurate: the Appointments Clause exists precisely to prevent unilateral executive placement of officers who wield prosecutorial power. The core question is whether the Supreme Court will endorse the executive's claimed authority to designate supervisors within DOJ without Senate confirmation, or whether the Appointments Clause applies to US attorneys regardless of their title. That ruling will determine whether this title-shuffling strategy becomes permanent executive toolkit or is shut down for good.
