Judges ruled Monday that a Nevada attorney serving as first assistant U.S. attorney could no longer hold power over the office

A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling this week has raised new questions about the legality of attorney Bill Essayli’s position at the federal prosecutor’s office in Los Angeles. However, a ruling last year found that Essayli was properly appointed as a special attorney and designated as first assistant U.S. attorney, allowing him to perform the lawful duties of that position.

The federal appellate court ruled Monday that the Department of Justice cannot allow an official who has not been confirmed by the Senate to have full powers of the U.S. attorney’s office, even if that position is vacant.

The ruling stemmed from a case involving Nevada prosecutor Sigal Chattah, who was appointed first assistant U.S. attorney after the top position was already vacant. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the arrangement did not allow Chattah to serve as acting U.S. attorney or exercise the functions and duties of that position.

In the court opinion, Circuit Judge Eric D. Miller pointed to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, a 1998 law governing temporary appointments to vacant federal positions, in explaining why Chattah could not assume the powers of an acting U.S. attorney by being designated first assistant after the vacancy arose.

“Applying those principles, we affirm the district court’s order disqualifying Sigal Chattah, the putative Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada, from supervising the prosecutions of the defendants in these cases,” Miller wrote.

Essayli was initially appointed interim U.S. attorney for the Central District of California by Attorney General Pam Bondi in April 2025. Federal law allowed Bondi to appoint him without Senate confirmation for a temporary period of 120 days under 28 U.S.C. § 546. That period was set to expire at the end of July.

On July 29, 2025, Essayli resigned as interim U.S. attorney. The same day, Bondi appointed him as a special attorney and designated him as first assistant U.S. attorney. Bondi also ordered that, as first assistant, Essayli would have authority to serve as acting U.S. attorney upon a vacancy, subject to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act’s conditions and time limits.

Scroll to continue reading

The Justice Department argued that Essayli’s appointment as special attorney and designation as first assistant were valid and allowed him to continue supervising the office even if he could not lawfully serve as acting U.S. attorney.

In October 2025, Senior U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright ruled that Essayli was not lawfully serving as acting U.S. attorney. However, Seabright found that Essayli had been properly appointed as a special attorney and designated as first assistant and said the court had no basis to prevent him from performing the lawful duties of that position. The ruling effectively allowed Essayli to remain in charge of the Los Angeles office.

“I think the judge has made clear, regardless of my title, I have the authority to run this office,” Essayli said at a news conference following the 2025 ruling.

The most recent Ninth Circuit ruling raises questions about whether the legal reasoning that allowed Essayli to continue exercising significant authority as first assistant could withstand scrutiny in light of the appellate court’s decision in the Nevada case.

However, the Ninth Circuit did not rule on Essayli’s appointment. The decision concerned Chattah and whether the attorney general could designate someone as first assistant after a vacancy had already occurred and then have that person serve as acting U.S. attorney.

The Justice Department plans to appeal the Ninth Circuit’s ruling to the Supreme Court, according to a Justice Department spokesperson quoted by The Daily Beast.