Bilal A. “Bill” Essayli, appointed as the United States Attorney for the Central District of California in April 2025, is currently facing legal challenges regarding the legitimacy of his continued service. The Federal Public Defender’s Office in Los Angeles has filed a motion to dismiss a felony prosecution and disqualify Essayli, arguing that his term exceeded the 120-day limit set by federal law. ([legalnewsline.com](https://www.legalnewsline.com/south-california-record/fed-pub-defender-says-essayli-improperly-serving-as-us-atty/article_855fb1c9-2911-4a97-8abd-30c2db0cc935.html?utm_source=openai))
Essayli was initially appointed by Attorney General Pamela Bondi on April 2, 2025, under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 546, which allows the Attorney General to appoint a U.S. Attorney when the position is vacant. This appointment was intended to last 120 days, expiring on July 30, 2025. ([justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/bilal-essayli-sworn-united-states-attorney-becoming-chief-federal-prosecutor-nations?utm_source=openai))
As the interim period concluded, the Trump administration extended Essayli’s tenure by designating him as acting U.S. Attorney, a move that has been contested. The Federal Public Defender’s Office contends that this extension violates the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), which restricts the duration and conditions under which acting officials can serve without Senate confirmation. ([news.bloomberglaw.com](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/judge-asked-to-disqualify-la-acting-us-attorney-bill-essayli?utm_source=openai))
The motion filed by the Public Defender’s Office asserts that Essayli’s continued service is unconstitutional, referencing a similar case in New Jersey where a court ruled that an acting U.S. Attorney’s appointment was unlawful under the FVRA. ([legalnewsline.com](https://www.legalnewsline.com/south-california-record/fed-pub-defender-says-essayli-improperly-serving-as-us-atty/article_855fb1c9-2911-4a97-8abd-30c2db0cc935.html?utm_source=openai))
In response, Essayli maintains that his appointment complies with federal law and that he is authorized to serve as acting U.S. Attorney. He emphasizes his commitment to upholding the law and serving the Central District of California.
Legal experts suggest that the outcome of this dispute could have broader implications for federal appointments and the interpretation of the FVRA. The court’s decision may influence how acting officials are appointed and the duration of their service without Senate confirmation.
As the legal proceedings continue, the Central District of California, encompassing Los Angeles and surrounding counties, remains attentive to the resolution of this matter, which holds significance for the administration of justice in the region.