Essayli’s Ballot Blockade Fails as Court Rules Against DOJ
US Attorney Bill Essayli’s attempt to block 20,000 California ballots from being counted in the upcoming midterms has failed after a federal appeals court ruled against the Justice Department. Essayli, an interim appointee lacking Senate confirmation, has aggressively pursued Trump-aligned cases, including charges against protesters and green card holders, leading to widespread legal failures and staff resignations. Critics describe his actions as a politicized effort to chill voting, while his office faces ongoing challenges to its legal authority.
Key points
- Essayli sued California to force the state to set aside 20,000 ballots from voters the DOJ labeled as likely noncitizens, but an appeals court rejected the bid, citing jurisdictional issues.
- The DOJ charged 13 green card holders with unlawful voter registration, including a high-profile arrest of a 72-year-old, while threatening prosecution for election officials who process such ballots.
- Essayli’s office has prosecuted 113 people for crimes against immigration officers since spring 2025, with 33 charges dismissed and only four guilty verdicts at trial, a conviction rate far below federal norms.
- Several high-profile cases collapsed, including a murder-for-hire trial against rapper Lil Durk and an arson case, while Essayli’s office lost roughly one-third of its legal staff due to internal policy violations.
- A federal judge ruled Essayli was unlawfully serving as US attorney, disqualifying him from overseeing two cases, though the DOJ intends to appeal the decision.
Background
Essayli was appointed interim US attorney in April 2025 without Senate confirmation, a move that has drawn legal challenges. His office has faced scrutiny for pursuing cases that deviate from standard DOJ protocols, including targeting protesters and trans athletes. Previous archive coverage notes ongoing legal battles involving Trump media and election integrity, but this story focuses on Essayli’s specific actions in California.
Why it matters
The failure of Essayli’s ballot blockade highlights the tension between federal enforcement and state election authority, raising concerns about the politicization of the DOJ. The low conviction rates and staff exodus suggest a departure from traditional prosecutorial norms, potentially undermining public trust in the justice system ahead of critical midterms.
What to watch
The DOJ plans to appeal the ruling disqualifying Essayli from overseeing certain cases. Meanwhile, California will proceed with counting the 20,000 ballots in question, and the district court will hold a hearing on the broader dispute. Essayli’s future in the role remains uncertain as legal challenges continue.
- The pro-Trump prosecutor trying to stop California ballots from being counted The Guardian
- Judge to appoint special master in California voting case in setback to Trump admin Yahoo
- What Local Election Officials Found in Trump’s New Claims About California Voters Lost Coast Outpost
- Appeals Court Declines to Intervene in California Ballot Lawsuit The New York Times
- Judge skeptical of Justice Dept lawsuit over alleged noncitizens on voting rolls Reuters
Want the full story? Read the original reporting
Read on The Guardian