admin
The courthouse drama in Los Angeles just got a plot twist worthy of a daytime soap — except this one could affect who gets to vote. A federal judge has ruled that First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli is “unlawfully serving” as the de‑facto U.S. Attorney in the Central District of California. That finding lands like a lead balloon in the Justice Department’s push to force California to set aside or verify roughly 20,000 vote‑by‑mail ballots tied to a list the DOJ says shows likely noncitizens.
What Judge Seabright actually found
U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright concluded that the paperwork and title games used to keep Essayli running the U.S. Attorney’s office didn’t cure the underlying legal problem. In plain English: saying someone is “first assistant” while letting them act like the top U.S. Attorney is not the same as a lawful appointment. The judge ordered that Essayli be disqualified from participating in or supervising two criminal cases brought by defendants who challenged his authority, though the order’s immediate effect has been delayed while the government asks for a stay.
Why this matters for the DOJ’s California ballot fight
The timing couldn’t be worse for the Justice Department. Attorney General Todd Blanche and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin have touted an analysis flagging more than 20,000 registrants who might be noncitizens, and DOJ lawyers — including Essayli — asked federal judges in California to sequester or hold aside those ballots. Now the lead prosecutor on the ground is undercut by a court ruling saying he lacks lawful authority. Defendants and state officials can and will use that procedural crack to slow the case, and judges are already wary of remedies that might wrongly disenfranchise voters.
Appointment fights are not just bureaucratic nitpicking
This ruling is part of a broader judicial trend pushing back against administrations that try to dodge Senate confirmation by relabeling handpicked lawyers and letting them run federal prosecutor offices. Courts across the country have been trimming that tactic. Conservatives should applaud enforcement of the Appointments Clause — Senate confirmation matters — even while worrying that the bureaucratic mess is now being blamed for political aims. If the DOJ believes the evidence supports action on those 20,000 names, it needs to present it cleanly and under someone whose authority is beyond doubt.
Bottom line: the messy mix of shaky appointments and high‑stakes election litigation is a problem for everyone who cares about fair play. The Justice Department has a duty to protect the vote, but it can’t do so while cutting corners on the rule of law. Judges likewise must balance preventing voter disenfranchisement with enforcing constitutional limits on who can sign the briefs. If the administration wants to keep litigating in the high dudgeon of election season, it would be wise to stop treating the U.S. Attorney’s office like a political hot potato and get the confirmations in order — or be prepared for more headlines about “unlawful service” and appeals that drag cases past the finish line.
