What happened in Virginia was merely the tip of the iceberg—the moment the scam produced a politically inconvenient result (the indictments were tossed). The larger, more insidious story is the national blueprint deployed in major jurisdictions across the West and the Northeast, where judges found the administration had perfected the "Acting Racket" to run an unaccountable shadow government.
In the Central District of California, in Nevada, and in New Jersey, federal judges issued rulings that confirmed the same pattern of constitutional fraud. These are not isolated procedural blunders; they are the documented coordinates of an executive coup against the system of checks and balances.
I. THE WEST COAST END-RUN: LOYALISTS IN LOS ANGELES AND NEVADA
The Central District of California (CDCA)—the nation's largest federal district, encompassing Los Angeles—was a prime target for this constitutional subversion. Federal judges here recognized the same systemic abuse.
The California Case (Bill Essayli): U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright ruled that Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli was unlawfully serving in his role in the CDCA. Essayli, a former federal prosecutor turned conservative California Assemblymember, was known for his aggressive stance against progressive state policies. The administration's choice was a known political warrior, not a neutral career servant. Judge Seabright found that the administration’s maneuver—which attempted to shift Essayli from one type of temporary appointment to another after his 120-day limit expired—was a blatant "end-run" around Congress's confirmation power. Essayli’s installation was part of the political objective to aggressively pursue cases aligned with the Executive's ideological goals, particularly on immigration enforcement. The judge ruled that Essayli had been unlawfully serving since July 29 and was disqualified from supervising key criminal prosecutions.
The Nevada Case (Sigal Chattah): The same systemic abuse was found in the District of Nevada. U.S. District Judge David Campbell ruled that prosecutor Sigal Chattah was "not validly serving" in the role of top federal prosecutor. Chattah was named interim U.S. Attorney, but as her 120-day statutory limit neared, the Justice Department executed the same shell game: shifting her to a "different job" that they claimed would allow her to continue as "Acting U.S. Attorney." Judge Campbell was unsparing, barring Chattah from supervising certain cases and ruling that the maneuver was an illegal attempt to maintain control. The court explicitly rejected the administration’s claim that the Attorney General had the power to designate "anyone she chooses as first assistant" to then seize the role of Acting U.S. Attorney. This judicial defiance in Nevada highlighted the administration’s determination to staff critical border-state positions with politically compatible operatives.
Crucially, in both California and Nevada, the judges’ rulings confirmed the core finding of the Virginia court: the Executive Branch was defying the clear intent and text of 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). The administration sought to treat the 120-day limit as a minor suggestion, easily defeated by internal paperwork and bureaucratic reshuffling. The courts saw this for what it was: a national blueprint for executive takeover.
II. THE NORTHEAST FRAGMENTATION: NEW JERSEY AND THE 120-DAY DEFIANCE
The "Acting Racket" was also exposed in the District of New Jersey, demonstrating that the scope of this corruption was national, spanning major financial and political hubs.
The New Jersey Case (Alina Habba): In New Jersey, the constitutional fraud was even more layered, exposing the serial nature of the administration's legal maneuvering. The U.S. Attorney’s position had been repeatedly filled using the interim appointment authority. When former presidential lawyer Alina Habba was installed, defense lawyers challenged her authority, arguing that the 120-day limit did not reset with her appointment but began tolling with the first interim appointment made after the vacancy occurred. U.S. District Judge Freda L. Wolfson agreed, concluding that the 120-day limit was an aggregate limit on the Attorney General’s authority to fill that specific vacancy. The judge found that the total time limit had expired long before Habba was appointed, rendering her service—and that of her predecessor—unlawful.
The Constitutional Chaos: The rulings in New Jersey and Virginia (Halligan) were particularly important because they both recognized that accepting the Justice Department's argument—that they could appoint a new person every 119 days—would be to completely nullify the judicial oversight power granted by § 546(d). That section authorizes the district court to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney after the 120-day AG limit expires. The administration’s lawyers were attempting to eliminate the courts from the constitutional loop entirely. As one legal analyst noted, this interpretation would allow the Attorney General to "forestall triggering § 546(d) by terminating every section 546(a) appointment on its 119th day," turning a specific, temporary legal check into a bureaucratic joke.
The fact that these separate federal courts—in districts with distinct legal histories and priorities—all arrived at the same conclusion confirms that the administration was operating with a national, pre-designed policy of constitutional defiance.
III. THE SYSTEMIC FAILURE: FROM MISTAKE TO MALICE
The Halligan ruling was unique because the judge had no choice but to dismiss the indictments, given Halligan’s singular role in securing them. However, in California, Nevada, and New Jersey, judges often permitted the cases brought under the unlawful appointees to move forward, substituting a different, lawfully appointed official. This differentiation highlights a crucial aspect of the Acting Racket: the administration was willing to risk the legal validity of its cases because the political payoff—installing a loyalist to direct policy and investigations—was worth the gamble.
This pattern demonstrates malice, not mistake:
Defiance of 2007 Law: The administration knew the history of the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, which was created to specifically prevent the indefinite use of temporary appointments. They defied that history.
Disregard for Senate: The strategy was a direct assault on the Senate's advice and consent power. By keeping loyalists in unconfirmed "Acting" positions, the administration avoided having their candidates vetted, questioned, or potentially rejected by the legislative branch. This destroyed the essential check and balance required for the independence of the Justice Department.
The Loyalty Qualification: In every instance, the choice of the unconfirmed prosecutor—from Halligan to Essayli to Habba—carried clear political baggage, demonstrating that the only criteria for national law enforcement leadership was undivided loyalty to the executive agenda, not legal experience or non-partisanship.
The sheer volume of successful legal challenges—three U.S. Attorneys disqualified in major districts, plus the dismissal of charges in Virginia—establishes that this was a widespread, operational corruption policy. The Executive Branch was not merely testing the limits of the law; it was intentionally exceeding them on a national scale.
IV. THE JUDICIAL RESISTANCE AND THE ROAD TO THE SUPREME COURT
The judicial resistance demonstrated in these separate, forceful rulings represents a critical moment in the fight against executive overreach. Individual judges, faced with the administration’s bureaucratic sophistry, rejected the legal gymnastics designed to perpetuate the fraud.
Rejecting the Shell Game: Judges explicitly condemned the attempt to shift "interim" prosecutors to "acting" prosecutors via internal shuffling, calling the move an unacceptable way to circumvent the law. The courts refused to rubber-stamp the "per-appointment" theory, which would have allowed the administration to cycle through an infinite number of temporary, unaccountable prosecutors.
The Looming Appeal: The Justice Department has indicated its intent to appeal the rulings, particularly the Halligan decision, which is the most devastating. This means the question of whether the Executive Branch can legally wage this national campaign of constitutional avoidance will eventually land before the nation’s highest court. The resolution will determine whether the constitutional safeguards designed to protect the independence of federal law enforcement are enforceable—or if they can be neutralized by a simple administrative filing.
This "Acting Racket" is the core of the Loyalists’ Handbook—a documented system to install political enforcers at the highest levels of the legal system, free from accountability to the people or their representatives. The next phase of the investigation must focus on the financial and ethical corruption that runs parallel to this judicial fraud, detailing how the loyalists, once installed, moved to loot the public treasury.
Source Material:
Court disqualifies Trump-appointed US attorney from overseeing multiple criminal cases - Newsday [https://www.newsday.com/news/nation/federal-prosecutor-disqualified-los-angeles-trump-m90871]
Judge disqualifies Trump-appointed Nevada prosecutor from some cases after finding she's "not validly serving" - CBS News [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-trump-nevada-prosecutor-not-validly-serving/]
Another Trump-Appointed U.S. Attorney Found to be Serving Unlawfully, Federal Judge Rules - Democracy Docket [https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/another-trump-appointed-u-s-attorney-found-to-be-serving-unlawfully-federal-judge-rules/]
All the President's Lawyers Redux: Ultra Vires U.S. Attorneys - Virginia Law Weekly [https://www.lawweekly.org/front-page/2025/10/22/3vlxuilcb3zjqehezl6w20wg94zgea]
Criminal cases against ex-FBI director Comey, Letitia James dismissed in blow to Trump administration - CBC News [https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-va-case-dismissed-james-comey-9.6990482]
Judge dismisses cases against James Comey and Letitia James after finding that prosecutor was illegally appointed - CBS News [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-dismisses-cases-against-james-comey-and-letitia-james-after-finding-that-prosecutor-was-illegally-appointed/]
No comments:
Post a Comment