For the third time in as many months, a federal judge has ruled that a top Justice Department appointment made under Attorney General Pam Bondi was illegal — the latest rebuke to what one court called a “limitless” attempt to sidestep Senate confirmation requirements.
On Tuesday, Senior U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that Bilal “Bill” Essayli, Bondi’s handpicked interim U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, had been “unlawfully serving” in that role since July. The judge found that Bondi’s Justice Department had manipulated a loophole in the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) to install loyalists without Senate approval, effectively keeping them in power long after their temporary authority expired.
It’s a pattern that’s now been struck down in three federal districts — California, Nevada, and New Jersey — involving Essayli, Sigal Chattah, and Alina Habba, each of whom followed an identical playbook. In all three cases, the acting U.S. attorneys “resigned” from their interim posts just as their 120-day terms expired, only to reemerge the next day as acting leaders of their offices.
Bondi, a former Florida attorney general and longtime Trump ally, has defended the tactic as a necessary measure to keep the DOJ “functional” amid gridlock in the Senate. But the courts aren’t buying it.
“Simply stated: Essayli unlawfully assumed the role of Acting United States Attorney for the Central District of California,” Seabright wrote in his decision. “He has been unlawfully serving in that capacity since his resignation from the interim role on July 29, 2025.”
The judge stopped short of throwing out any indictments but made clear that the position itself had no legal basis. Under the FVRA, acting appointments can only occur after a Senate-confirmed official dies, resigns, or becomes incapacitated — and the acting replacement must be the first assistant already in place at the time.
Bondi’s DOJ allegedly fired or reassigned those first assistants, leaving the roles vacant so she could fill them with political loyalists. The result, critics say, is a shadow chain of command in which unconfirmed appointees are running the nation’s most powerful prosecutorial offices without legal authority.
Federal defendants in California, Ismael Garcia Jr., Jaime Hector Ramirez, and Ronny Rojas, challenged Essayli’s legitimacy directly, accusing Bondi of creating a “handbook” to evade congressional oversight. Their case now mirrors the earlier rulings against Habba and Chattah — both still under appeal.
Essayli appeared unfazed by Tuesday’s decision. “Nothing is changing,” he wrote on X, even as he posted a screenshot of the ruling stating that he had never lawfully served as acting U.S. attorney. He continues to identify himself as such online.
The Justice Department, now facing rulings across three circuits, is preparing for a legal showdown that could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
