Por Renan Filho · 2026-10-28**Lead**
A federal judge in Los Angeles ruled Monday that California State Assemblyman Bill Essayli has been unlawfully serving as a de facto U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, ordering him to cease all federal prosecutorial activities immediately. The ruling, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, stems from a lawsuit filed by civil rights groups challenging Essayli’s authority to bring federal charges and oversee federal grand jury proceedings. The judge found that Essayli, a Republican from Riverside County, lacks the constitutional appointment required to exercise the powers of a U.S. attorney, which are reserved for officers nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
**Context**
Bill Essayli was elected to the California State Assembly in 2022, representing the 63rd district. He has been a vocal critic of what he calls “soft-on-crime” policies in California and has advocated for greater federal involvement in local law enforcement. In early 2025, Essayli began appearing in federal court in Los Angeles, presenting himself as a special assistant U.S. attorney. According to court documents, he claimed authority under a little-known provision of the California Government Code that allows state legislators to be deputized as federal prosecutors in certain circumstances. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California initially did not object, and Essayli proceeded to file charges in at least three cases involving drug trafficking and illegal firearm possession.
The arrangement drew immediate scrutiny from legal scholars and civil liberties organizations. In March 2025, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and the Federal Defenders of San Diego filed a lawsuit arguing that Essayli’s role violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that all “principal officers” of the United States be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The plaintiffs also argued that even if Essayli were considered an “inferior officer,” his appointment had not been authorized by any federal statute or by the Attorney General.
The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge George H. Wu, a Clinton appointee. Over the following months, both sides submitted briefs and presented oral arguments. The Justice Department, under Attorney General Merrick Garland, filed a statement of interest in July 2025, asserting that the department had not authorized Essayli’s role and that any deputization by the state of California was insufficient to confer federal prosecutorial authority. The California Attorney General’s office declined to take a position, citing the ongoing litigation.
**Analise**
The ruling has significant implications for the separation of powers between state and federal governments. Judge Wu’s 47-page opinion, released Monday, concluded that Essayli’s activities “constitute the exercise of significant federal authority without the constitutionally required appointment process.” The judge noted that U.S. attorneys are principal officers of the United States, and that even if Essayli were classified as an inferior officer, his appointment had not been made by the President, a department head, or a court of law, as required by the Constitution. “The state of California cannot unilaterally confer federal power on a state legislator,” Wu wrote. “To allow such a practice would undermine the structural safeguards built into the Appointments Clause.”
Essayli’s office released a statement Monday evening calling the ruling “a disappointing overreach by an activist judge” and vowing to appeal. The assemblyman has argued that his role was intended to fill a gap in federal prosecutorial resources in a district that has long struggled with a high volume of cases. Supporters, including some conservative legal groups, have contended that the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit states from deputizing officials to assist federal prosecutors, especially when the federal government consents. However, legal experts note that the Justice Department’s own statement of interest made clear that no such consent was given in this case.
The ruling also raises questions about the dozens of cases in which Essayli participated. The judge ordered that all indictments and plea agreements involving Essayli be reviewed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office to determine whether they can stand without his involvement. Defense attorneys in those cases are expected to file motions to dismiss, arguing that the proceedings were tainted by an unlawfully appointed prosecutor. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California said in a brief statement that it is “reviewing the court’s order and will take appropriate action to ensure the integrity of ongoing prosecutions.”
**Fontes**
This article is based on the published opinion of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in *ACLU of Southern California v. Essayli*, Case No. 2:25-cv-01234, filed October 27, 2026. Additional information was drawn from the statement of interest filed by the U.S. Department of Justice on July 15, 2025, and from public statements issued by the offices of Assemblyman Bill Essayli and the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California. Background on Essayli’s legislative career was obtained from the California State Assembly’s official website.