Defense Lawyers Try Again to Remove Senior Federal Prosecutor in Los Angeles

Criminal defendants seeking to oust Bill Essayli say a federal judge failed to rule on their constitutional arguments.

Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli speaks next to Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell during a news conference announcing an arrest made in relation to the Palisades Fire in Los Angeles on Oct. 8, 2025. Damian Dovarganes/AP Photo

Attorneys for criminal defendants facing weapons charges have filed for a second time to disqualify a Trump administration appointee as the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles.

The new motion filed on Nov. 10 comes after Judge Michael Seabright of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii ruled on Oct. 28 that Bilal “Bill” Essayli was unlawfully installed as acting U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, but Seabright declined to dismiss indictments against three criminal defendants who asked for Essayli to be removed from his post.

He also ruled that although Essayli was not entitled to serve as acting U.S. attorney, he may continue to supervise the federal prosecutor’s office because he was named first assistant U.S. attorney for the judicial district and the U.S. attorney post is currently vacant.

The new motion by two of the criminal defendants—Ismael Garcia Jr. and Jaime Hector Ramirez—asks Seabright to reconsider his ruling, saying that the judge failed to rule on the defendants’ contention that Essayli was unconstitutionally appointed to his position. They argue that by installing Essayli, who has not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate, the Trump administration is attempting to maneuver around the Senate’s constitutional authority to review and confirm the appointment of senior government officials.

Garcia was indicted on Aug. 8 for being a felon in possession of ammunition and a machine gun. Ramirez was indicted on Aug. 13 for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition.

On April 2, Essayli was sworn in as the U.S. attorney for the Central District of California after U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed him on an interim basis the day before.

The Department of Justice said the appointment was carried out under Section 546 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, which states that “the Attorney General may appoint a United States Attorney for the district in which the office of United States Attorney is vacant.”

The statute also provides that an interim U.S. attorney may not continue in that position after 120 days unless he has been confirmed by the Senate.

When such an appointment expires, the statute empowers the federal judges for the judicial district to select an interim replacement.

However, on July 29, Essayli resigned as interim U.S. attorney before the 120-day period lapsed.

Bondi then appointed Essayli as first assistant U.S. attorney for the district. It is the government’s position that under federal law, the individual holding this post becomes the acting head of the district prosecutor’s office when that office is vacant.

Three defendants in criminal cases pending in the district court sued to disqualify Essayli as acting U.S. attorney and argued that because he did not hold that position legitimately, the indictments he obtained against them were invalid.

Specifically, the defendants argued that Essayli was illegally serving as acting U.S. attorney because the permanent occupant of that position must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They also argued that the indictments should be dismissed because Essayli “was not lawfully serving” when the defendants were indicted and was therefore not lawfully supervising their prosecutions.

Seabright ruled on Oct. 28 that Essayli’s assumption of the office of acting U.S. attorney was unlawful and disqualified him from participating in the prosecutions of the defendants.

“Nevertheless, the court denies the requests to dismiss the indictments, and the prosecutions remain valid,” the judge said.

“And despite Essayli’s unlawful service as Acting United States Attorney, he remains the First Assistant United States Attorney for the Central District.”

In the new motion, the two defendants argue that Essayli is wielding “officer-level powers” within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution’s appointments clause, which requires that federal officers be confirmed by the Senate.

Because Seabright’s Oct. 28 ruling “left the defense’s constitutional arguments unresolved, the Court should reconsider the order and address those issues,” the motion said.

When it does so, “it should bar Mr. Essayli from supervising these prosecutions and dismiss the indictments,” it said.

Moreover, the defendants say that “‘first assistant’ is not a statutory office at all, and it carries no functions and duties.”

“First assistant” is merely a label that the attorney general uses under a Department of Justice regulation implementing the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, according to the motion.

Essayli is the third acting U.S. attorney whose qualifications have been challenged on similar grounds.

Judges have previously disqualified two acting U.S. attorneys, Alina Habba of New Jersey and Sigal Chattah of Nevada, on similar grounds. However, the decision to disqualify Chattah has been put on hold pending appeal.

It is unclear when Seabright will act on the new motion.

The Epoch Times reached out to the Department of Justice for comment but received no response.

Joseph Lord contributed to this report.