A federal judge has ruled that Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in southern California, is "unlawfully serving" in the job he has been holding since April 2025. Essayli responded by saying he looks forward to continuing to serve in the role he was just told he occupies illegally. The Trump administration has now lost this exact argument so many times that the titles are starting to sound like a bit.
The ruling, reported by The Guardian, disqualifies Essayli from overseeing two criminal prosecutions. It does not take effect right away, because the Department of Justice plans to appeal.
The Title Shell Game
Let's walk through how Essayli got here, because the sequence is the whole joke. He became an "interim" US attorney in April 2025. Trump never formally nominated him, which meant the Senate never got to vote on him. That is the point of the maneuver, not a side effect of it.
When the interim appointment ran out last July, the administration slapped an "acting" title on him. When a judge ruled he was unlawfully serving as US attorney, they kept him on as "first assistant." Then they added a "special attorney" designation for good measure.
That's four different labels for one guy doing one job. If you find yourself needing a fourth title to explain why a person is allowed to do something, the person is probably not allowed to do it.
The Appeals Court Already Said No
Judge Michael Seabright did not have to freestyle here. In August, a federal appellate court ruled against a Nevada justice department leader in a similar case. Seabright cited that higher court's ruling on Tuesday and concluded that Essayli's fancy designations change nothing.
So the legal question has effectively been answered by a court with more authority than his. The administration's response is to keep going and ask for another bite. That is allowed, technically. It is also a strategy built on the hope that the clock, or a friendlier court, bails them out before anyone enforces the law.
Essayli's Defense: Trust Me, Bro, the Supreme Court Will Sort It Out
Essayli said in a statement that he and the administration "respectfully disagree with the court's order." He said "the President and the Attorney General have every right to select supervisors within the Justice Department." Then he added that "ultimately, this question will be decided by the Supreme Court, and I look forward to serving in my current role until then."
Read that last part again. He is announcing, in writing, that he plans to keep doing the job a federal judge just said he is doing unlawfully, for as long as he can get away with it. That is not a legal argument. That is a man telling you he intends to stay in the house until the sheriff physically shows up.
The Senate confirmation process exists for a reason. The people who run federal prosecutors' offices wield the power to charge you with crimes. The Constitution says someone should have to ask the Senate first.
Meet the Prosecutor Who Wasn't Allowed to Be One
A former Republican state lawmaker and Trump ally, Essayli has spent the past year doing exactly what you'd expect from someone installed because of loyalty rather than vetting. He has brought cases that line up neatly with the MAGA agenda, aggressively targeting immigrants for deportation and prosecuting protesters.
Most recently he launched a campaign against "voter fraud," alleging that thousands of registered California voters are "likely non-citizens" and pushing to have their ballots set aside. State election officials have forcefully opposed the effort.
So to recap: the man who has not been confirmed by the Senate and has now been ruled unlawfully serving by a federal judge is the same man trying to throw out the ballots of Californians. You can't make this up, and nobody should have to.
Alina Habba Called, She Wants Her Playbook Back
This is not a one-off. Alina Habba, Trump's former personal lawyer, was disqualified from the top prosecutor job in New Jersey in December. She landed softly as a senior adviser at the Justice Department, which is the government equivalent of being asked to leave a restaurant and then hired as a consultant for the restaurant.
H Dean Steward, the defense lawyer who challenged Essayli's position, called the ruling a "victory for the rule of law and the US constitution." He told the LA Times that "the Trump administration ignored the laws governing the appointment of US attorneys and got caught in Los Angeles." He accused Trump and the DOJ of violating the law "again and again in an effort to install minions as chief federal prosecutors."
That's a defense attorney's characterization, and it is a spicy one. But the pattern in the reporting backs up the shape of it: a loyalist, an unconfirmed appointment, a court ruling, a workaround, another ruling.
The Dingo Take
Four titles. That is how many labels this administration has used to keep one unconfirmed man in one job: interim, acting, first assistant, special attorney. Every time a judge says no, they rename him and walk him back through the same door.
This isn't a clever legal theory. It's a refusal to ask the Senate for permission because the answer might be no. The whole machinery of confirmation exists so that the people who can put you in federal prison have to survive scrutiny first. Skipping it because the nominee is too loyal to risk a vote is not creative lawyering. It's contempt for the check built into the job.
And the best part is the plan. Essayli says he looks forward to serving until the Supreme Court weighs in. Translation: keep the seat warm, prosecute the protesters, chase the voter rolls, and let the appeals clock do the work. If a court tells you that you are breaking the law and your response is to keep doing it as long as the paperwork allows, you are not defending the Constitution. You are just betting nobody has the stamina to enforce it.
Comments