Staff Reports
The story this week is simple and messy: a federal judge in Los Angeles found that First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli is “unlawfully serving as a ‘de facto’ United States Attorney” and barred him from two criminal cases. The order is paused for now while the Justice Department seeks a stay, and the tug-of-war over who can run U.S. Attorney offices looks headed to the Supreme Court. That fight matters far beyond these two prosecutions.
What the judge actually did and what it means
Senior Judge J. Michael Seabright issued an order disqualifying Bill Essayli from participating in or supervising two prosecutions — U.S. v. Ramirez and U.S. v. Tran — because the court concluded he was effectively acting as the U.S. Attorney without a lawful appointment. The judge did not toss the indictments, but he said Essayli cannot touch those cases. The order is stayed short term so the Department of Justice can ask an appellate court or the Supreme Court to step in. In plain terms: the prosecution keeps going, but the boss who has been running the office is told he can’t lead those files unless the stay holds.
The legal snag: the Federal Vacancies Reform Act made simple
This row turns on a dry statute called the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, or FVRA, and on recent appellate rulings that say you can’t play fast and loose with how interim U.S. Attorneys are picked. Courts have found that naming someone “first assistant” after a vacancy, or delegating all the powers, doesn’t magically make them the lawful acting U.S. Attorney. Judge Seabright relied on that reasoning and on a Ninth Circuit line of cases that rejected the Justice Department’s after‑the‑fact appointment games. The net effect is that technical rules about who holds a job now decide whether a prosecutor can keep doing the work he was doing for months.
What happens next — stay requests, appeals, and the likely Supreme Court finish
The Justice Department has signaled it will fight this. Essayli himself said the order is stayed and he’s staying put while the government appeals. Expect an urgent push for a stay, then a fast trip to the Ninth Circuit and, almost certainly, a petition to the Supreme Court. This is already national litigation: other courts have reached similar conclusions, and the high court is being asked to resolve the split. If the Supreme Court accepts the question, its decision will reshape how future U.S. Attorneys are appointed and could affect high‑profile cases across the country.
Why conservatives should pay attention
Here’s the uncomfortable truth for those who want tough, independent prosecutors: process matters. Conservatives who cheered aggressive prosecutions should not ignore the rule book when it gets bent. But neither should we celebrate a technicality when it looks like bureaucratic wrangling is used to hobble an office that’s been doing its job. Washington has turned appointments into a legal game of musical chairs, and now defendants, victims, and law‑and‑order voters are watching to see who wins. If the courts toss out competent prosecutors over paperwork, prosecutions suffer. If the executive branch can ignore the law, the rule of law suffers. Either way, the Supreme Court’s answer will matter — and so will how we react when our side looks like it’s trying to win by clever paperwork instead of clear law.
