In a significant legal development, a federal judge has ruled that Bilal A. “Bill” Essayli, who had been serving as the acting U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, was unlawfully appointed to his position. The decision has raised important questions about the legality of several recent interim appointments made by the Department of Justice (DOJ) under Attorney General Pam Bondi’s leadership.
A Federal Judge’s Unusual Rebuke
On October 28, U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright issued a decision in Honolulu disqualifying Essayli from continuing to serve as acting U.S. Attorney. The court concluded that the DOJ failed to follow the procedures set forth under federal law for such appointments, rendering Essayli’s tenure invalid.
Judge Seabright’s ruling emphasized that the appointment process under 28 U.S.C. § 546, which governs interim U.S. attorney appointments, must be strictly followed. While the Attorney General has authority to make temporary appointments, those appointments expire after 120 days unless the President nominates a permanent replacement and the Senate confirms that nominee.
The ruling found that those statutory requirements were not met in Essayli’s case, leaving the Central District—the nation’s largest federal district by population—without a properly appointed top prosecutor.
Background on the Appointment
Bilal Essayli, a former federal prosecutor and California Assemblyman, was appointed by Attorney General Pam Bondi in March 2025 to lead the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California. The district covers seven counties, including Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo, serving a population of roughly 19 million people.
Bondi’s appointment of Essayli was controversial from the start. Critics within the legal community argued that the DOJ’s interim appointment process had become increasingly politicized, allowing acting U.S. attorneys to serve indefinitely without Senate confirmation.
Judge Seabright’s ruling appears to validate some of those concerns, marking one of the first times in recent memory that a federal court has struck down an acting U.S. attorney’s appointment as unlawful.
The Court’s Reasoning
In his written order, Judge Seabright explained that the DOJ “failed to adhere to statutory limits intended to safeguard the independence of the U.S. Attorney’s Office.” The decision stressed that allowing indefinite interim appointments would undermine the constitutional balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches.
The court also clarified that while the Attorney General can temporarily fill a vacancy, the authority to formally appoint a U.S. attorney belongs solely to the President and the Senate through the confirmation process. “Congress intended for temporary appointments to be the exception, not the rule,” Judge Seabright wrote.
Impact on Ongoing Federal Cases
Despite finding Essayli’s appointment unlawful, Judge Seabright did not invalidate indictments or ongoing prosecutions initiated during his tenure. The judge concluded that because other duly authorized prosecutors had signed those indictments, the actions of the U.S. Attorney’s Office remained legally valid.
This portion of the ruling may provide reassurance to defendants, prosecutors, and victims alike that pending cases—including high-profile racketeering and firearms prosecutions—will not be dismissed due to administrative irregularities.
However, the disqualification leaves the Central District of California without a confirmed leader. Essayli can continue to serve as First Assistant U.S. Attorney, a position he held before being elevated to acting status, but he cannot exercise the full powers of the U.S. Attorney.
Pattern of Improper Appointments
Judge Seabright’s decision follows a similar ruling earlier this year involving Acting U.S. Attorney Sigal Chattah in Nevada, who was also found to have been improperly appointed under comparable circumstances. Together, these rulings could force the Department of Justice to reexamine its appointment protocols and ensure compliance with federal law.
Legal analysts suggest that these decisions could trigger a broader review of interim leadership across other U.S. Attorney’s Offices, especially those filled without presidential nomination or Senate confirmation. If courts continue to find procedural violations, it could disrupt ongoing prosecutions or delay new appointments across multiple jurisdictions.
Political and Institutional Ramifications
The ruling also places Attorney General Pam Bondi’s DOJ under increased scrutiny. Bondi, a former Florida Attorney General who took office under the current administration, has been criticized by some for bypassing traditional norms in filling senior prosecutorial posts.
Opponents argue that improper interim appointments can undermine the independence of federal prosecutors, who are supposed to serve as impartial enforcers of the law rather than political appointees.
Supporters of the DOJ, however, contend that the department has been acting within its discretion amid a backlog of Senate confirmations and political gridlock in Washington. They argue that the courts’ narrow interpretation of the appointment statute could hinder the Justice Department’s ability to function efficiently.
What Comes Next
The Justice Department has not yet indicated whether it will appeal Judge Seabright’s decision. If upheld, the ruling could compel the President to immediately nominate a new U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California and expedite Senate confirmation proceedings to fill the post lawfully.
Until then, the office will likely continue to operate under the direction of senior career prosecutors, ensuring continuity in criminal and civil enforcement efforts.
Broader Implications for Federal Accountability
This case underscores a growing judicial insistence on procedural integrity within the Justice Department. As federal courts continue to examine the legality of interim appointments, the balance between expediency and constitutional process remains a central concern.
For now, the disqualification of Bilal Essayli serves as a reminder that even the nation’s most powerful law enforcement institutions must operate within the boundaries of the law.
For attorneys, law students, and legal professionals navigating today’s evolving justice system, staying informed and connected is more important than ever. If you’re seeking a position in government, private practice, or public interest law, LawCrossing offers the nation’s most comprehensive database of legal job listings.
Discover exclusive opportunities at federal agencies, top law firms, and prestigious organizations before they appear anywhere else.
👉 Visit LawCrossing.com today to explore thousands of verified legal jobs and take the next step in your career.
