Judge Disqualifies Bill Essayli From Two Prosecutions, Rules He Is Unlawfully Serving; DOJ to Appeal

A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Southern California, is unlawfully serving as head of the U.S. attorney's office and disqualified him from overseeing two criminal prosecutions. U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright issued the order, which does not take effect immediately, giving the Justice Department time to seek a stay pending appeal. The department has said it intends to appeal.

Essayli, a former Republican state lawmaker and Trump ally, became interim U.S. attorney in April 2025 without being nominated by the president or confirmed by the Senate. After the interim term ended last July, the administration gave him an acting title, then kept him on as first assistant after a judge found he was unlawfully serving. Seabright cited an August federal appeals court ruling against the administration in a similar case involving Nevada's top federal prosecutor. Essayli said he disagreed with the order, said the president and attorney general have every right to select supervisors in the Justice Department, and said the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the question.

The Guardian US, on the left, leads with the ruling and spends its space on the legal background: Essayli's lack of Senate confirmation, the sequence of interim, acting and first-assistant titles, and the Nevada precedent. It describes the administration's moves as maneuvers to keep him in office. Raw Story's headline calls him a MAGA prosecutor trying to obstruct California voters, linking him to the Justice Department's suit over mail ballots from about 20,000 voters it alleges are likely noncitizens, in the material available. Fox News, on the right, opens with Essayli defending the effort to set aside those ballots, and warning that it must be resolved before votes are counted in the midterms. It then reports the ruling, includes his statement and a link to the Nevada appeals decision, and stresses that the order is delayed. All three report the disqualification and the planned appeal; they differ in whether they foreground his confirmation status or his own defense. Alternative outlets had not reported the story at the time of writing.