A federal judge has rejected a motion to oust Bill Essayli as lead federal prosecutor in Orange County and to dismiss an indictment under his watch.
Attorney Dean Steward earlier this month filed a motion to dismiss the indictment of 49-year-old Tu Anh Tran, who is charged with possession of property stolen from interstate or foreign shipment.
The indictment alleges Tran and co-defendant Truc Doan possessed about 1,100 cartons of Skechers goods valued at $400,000, Harbor Freight brand merchandise worth about $98,000, Milwaukee Tools worth about $93,000, and Mercedes-Benz parts worth about $1.4 million.
Steward argued that Essayli, whose title is First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, has not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate as required to remain in office beyond a temporary appointment.
But U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright on Friday rejected the motion, siding with federal prosecutors.
Seabright pointed to earlier rulings that established Essayli was legally in office as the office’s lead prosecutor.
Essayli’s title as interim U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California ended at the end of July last year. But on July 29, 2025, the attorney general appointed Essayli as First Assistant U.S. Attorney, essentially allowing him to perform the same job with a different title.
Federal prosecutors argued in a July 8 response to Steward’s motion that a prior court ruling established Essayli is legally serving in the office, although not with the title of U.S. Attorney for the Central District.
“Defendant offers no real argument as to why he thinks Mr. Essayli cannot be involved in (Tran’s) case as First Assistant,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander P. Robbins argued.
Robbins accused Steward of “resorting to name-calling, conspiracy theories, and factual misstatements.”
Federal prosecutors conceded that Essayli “cannot serve or act as the U.S. Attorney, and that there are duties only a U.S. Attorney can perform and powers specific to the office. But defendant does not claim Mr. Essayli did any of these things.”
Robbins added that Essayli “can lawfully supervise this case” and the motion to dismiss should be denied.
Steward argued in a follow-up motion July 17 that the response “failed to address the key issue set out in the defense’s opening brief.”
Steward said his motion “contends that the current administration in Washington, D.C., has pursued a scheme to avoid Senate scrutiny of their largely unqualified and purely political picks for most U.S. Attorney positions across the country.”
Of the 93 U.S. Attorneys in the country, more than 60 are in “acting” or “interim” roles, Steward argued.
“Two-thirds of the chief federal prosecutors in America have not been confirmed or reviewed by the Senate, including Mr. Essayli in this district,” Steward wrote. “The current administration’s scheme to avoid Senate confirmation is nothing but a naked violation of law for political purposes. This abuse of the federal system must stop.”
Steward argued that the goal “is to install Trump loyalists, retain flexibility to place or replace these U.S. Attorneys, and evade legislative review. Maneuvers nationally have included using `acting,’ `interim,’ or `first assistant’ designations to avoid traditional confirmation hearings.”
Steward pointed out that the issue has cropped up in other courts since Trump’s re-election.
“To emphasize the point that the scheme continues daily, the Trump administration manipulated the court in the Western District of Washington this past week,” Steward argued.
Steward noted that Charles Floyd was appointed interim U.S. Attorney in that district, but his appointment expired at the end of February. So the judges in that district appointed former judge and prosecutor Roger Rogoff, but Trump fired him minutes after he was sworn in, Steward said.
Steward argued that the move “flies in the face of justice and is a slap in the face of the federal judicial officers in that district. The event highlights the continuing scheme to end-run the Senate confirmation process.”
There is a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals challenge in a similar case that could open the door for Seabright to reconsider the ruling.