A federal court in Los Angeles convened on Tuesday to examine the legitimacy of maneuvers executed by the Trump administration that resulted in Bill Essayli being installed as the acting United States attorney in the region.
Senior Judge J. Michael Seabright, who arrived from Hawaii for the hearing, confronted the defense attorneys’ request to dismiss indictments against three clients and disqualify Essayli from participating in criminal prosecutions.
Essayli, a former Riverside County assemblyman, was appointed as the interim federal prosecutor in April by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi.
His appointment was scheduled to conclude in late July unless he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate or a panel of federal judges. However, the White House opted for an unprecedented legal maneuver that allowed them to extend his title to “acting” for an additional nine months without any confirmation process.
During the proceedings, Judge Seabright raised concerns about the potential implications of dismissing charges against defendants based solely on Essayli’s title.
“If I did this for your client, I’ll have to do it for every single defendant who was indicted when Mr. Essayli was acting under the rubric of acting U.S. attorney, correct?” Seabright inquired of a federal public defender.
“I don’t think you will,” replied defense attorney James A. Flynn, suggesting that such a decision could be limited to a time-specific, case-specific analysis.
Judge Seabright remained skeptical. “Why not? You’re asking for a really draconian remedy here,” he responded, pressing for clarity on the number of indictments processed during Essayli’s term as acting U.S. attorney.
“203, your honor,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander P. Robbins confirmed.
In anticipation of the hearing, attorneys challenging Essayli’s authority criticized the government’s defense of his position, characterizing it as a strategy to bypass legislative and constitutional protections against unaccountable appointments.
The arguments echoed similar legal disputes occurring in other states. In August, a federal judge determined that Alina Habba had been unlawfully holding the U.S. attorney position in New Jersey. Though that ruling was temporarily stayed pending an appeal, it underscored the complexities surrounding such appointments.
Last month, a different federal judge disqualified Nevada’s Sigal Chattah from several cases, concluding that she was not validly serving as the acting U.S. attorney.
In both the New Jersey and Nevada cases, the judges opted not to dismiss the charges against defendants, but instead directed that those cases not be overseen by Habba or Chattah.
Flynn contended that the judicial remedies employed elsewhere had failed to effectively deter the administration’s conduct.
“This court has the benefit of additional weeks and has seen the government’s response to that determination that their appointments were illegal and I submit the government hasn’t gotten the message,” Flynn argued.
He proposed a possible resolution could involve a dismissal without prejudice, implying the government could later refile charges. Flynn deemed this option a “weaker medicine” than complete dismissal but a more decisive remedy than those attempted in New Jersey and Nevada.
Tension rose during the nearly two-hour hearing as Judge Seabright pressed Assistant U.S. Atty. Robbins for details about when Essayli’s term was set to conclude.
Robbins indicated that the government believed his term would end on February 24, after which the position of acting U.S. attorney would remain unfilled.
Robbins also noted that Essayli had been designated as the first assistant U.S. attorney, suggesting that he could still manage the office if he lost his ‘acting’ designation.
Bondi had appointed him as a “special attorney” in July, though Robbins asserted that there had not been a substantial challenge to either that title or his designation as first assistant.
“The defense challenge here, the stated interest that they have, is Bill Essayli cannot be acting,” Robbins countered.
“But they don’t have a compelling or strong response to Bill Essayli is legitimately in the office and he can be the first assistant … he can supervise other people in the office,” he continued.
Judge Seabright asked both parties to provide written briefs by Thursday discussing the various titles held by Essayli.
He asked them to clarify what implications might arise if he were to rule that Essayli was not legitimately appointed as acting U.S. attorney.
“If I understand the government’s proposed remedy correctly … it would essentially be no remedy at all, because they would be re-creating Mr. Essayli as the acting United States attorney; he’d just be wearing a first assistant hat,” Flynn responded.
Following the hearing, a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in L.A. did not provide immediate comments.
When approached last month regarding the motion to disqualify him, Essayli stated, “the president won the election.
The American people provided him a mandate to run the executive branch, including the U.S. attorney’s office, and I look forward to serving at the pleasure of the president.”
image source from：latimes
