unlawfully

Oct. 29 (UPI) — A federal judge has disqualified President Donald Trump‘s top prosecutor in Los Angeles, ruling Bill Essayli has been unlawfully serving as interim U.S. attorney for the Central District of California since late July.

The order was issued Tuesday by Judge J. Michael Seabright of the Federal District Court in Hawaii, stating Essayli “is not lawfully serving as Acting United States Attorney for the Central District of California.”

The effect of the order, however, was unclear, as it states that though he may not continue in the role as interim U.S. attorney, he may continue to perform his duties as first assistant United States attorney.

“For those who didn’t read the entire order, nothing is changing,” Essayli said in a statement.

“I continue serving as the top federal prosecutor in the Central District of California.”

The ruling comes in response to motions filed by three defendants seeking to dismiss indictments brought against them and to disqualify Essayli as acting U.S. attorney.

Essayli, who was appointed by the Trump administration, was sworn in on April 2 to serve as the interim U.S. attorney for 120 days.

As his term was nearing its end on July 31, Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Essayli as a special attorney, effective upon his resignation as interim U.S. attorney.

In his ruling Tuesday, Seabright, a President George W. Bush appointee, said that Essayli assumed the role of acting U.S. attorney in violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which limits the amount of time prosecutors may fill federal positions without Senate approval.

“Simply stated: Essayli unlawfully assumed the role of Acting United States Attorney for the Central District of California. He has been unlawfully serving in that capacity since his resignation from the interim role on July 29, 2025,” he said.

“He is disqualified from serving in that role.”

Despite his ruling on Essayli, Seabright denied the three defendants’ request to dismiss their indictments, stating “the prosecutions remain valid.”

The ruling is the latest going against the Trump administration’s attempts to employ people in high-ranking positions without securing congressional approval.

In August, a federal judge ruled Alina Habba, a former personal Trump lawyer, was illegally serving as acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey after her 12-day interim term expired.

Last month, a federal judge ruled that Sigal Chattah had been unlawfully serving as Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada.

Both decisions are being appealed.

BATON ROUGE, La. — The immigration detainees sent to a notorious Louisiana prison last month are being punished for crimes for which they have already served time, the American Civil Liberties Union said Monday in a lawsuit challenging the government’s decision to hold what it calls the “worst of the worst” there.

The lawsuit accuses President Trump’s administration of selecting the former slave plantation known as Angola for its “uniquely horrifying history” and intentionally subjecting immigrant detainees to inhumane conditions — including foul water and lacking basic necessities — in violation of the Double Jeopardy clause, which protects people from being punished twice for the same crime.

The ACLU also alleges some immigrants detained at the newly opened “Louisiana Lockup” should be released because the government failed to deport them within six months of a removal order. The lawsuit cites a 2001 Supreme Court ruling raised in several recent immigration cases, including that of the Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, that says immigration detention should be “nonpunitive.”

“The anti-immigrant campaign under the guise of ‘Making America Safe Again’ does not remotely outweigh or justify indefinite detention in ‘America’s Bloodiest Prison’ without any of the rights afforded to criminal defendants,” ACLU attorneys argue in a petition reviewed by The Associated Press.

The AP sent requests for comment to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry.

The lawsuit comes a month after state and federal authorities gathered at the sprawling Louisiana State Penitentiary to announce that the previously shuttered prison complex had been refurbished to house up to 400 immigrant detainees that officials said would include some of the most violent in ICE custody.

The complex had been nicknamed “the dungeon” because it previously held inmates in solitary cells for more than 23 hours a day.

ICE repurposed the facility amid an ongoing legal battle over an immigration detention center in the Florida Everglades dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz,” and as Trump continues his large-scale attempt to remove millions of people suspected of entering the country illegally. The federal government has been racing to to expand its deportation infrastructure and, with state allies, has announced other new facilities, including what it calls the “Speedway Slammer” in Indiana and the “Cornhusker Clink” in Nebraska. ICE is seeking to detain 100,000 people under a $45 billion expansion Trump signed into law in July.

At Angola last month, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told reporters the “legendary” maximum security prison, the largest in the nation, had been chosen to house a new ICE facility to encourage people in the U.S. illegally to self-deport. “This facility will hold the most dangerous of criminals,” she said.

Authorities said the immigration detainees would be isolated from Angola’s thousands of civil prisoners, many of whom are serving life sentences for violent offenses.

“I know you all in the media will attempt to have a field day with this facility, and you will try to find everything wrong with our operation in an effort to make those who broke the law in some of the most violent ways victims,” Landry, a Republican, said during a news conference last month.

“If you don’t think that they belong in somewhere like this, you’ve got a problem.”

The ACLU lawsuit says detainees at “Louisiana Lockup” already were “forced to go on hunger strike” to “demand basic necessities such as medical care, toilet paper, hygiene products and clean drinking water.” Detainees have described a long-neglected facility that was not yet prepared to house them, saying they are contending with mold, dust and ”black” water coming out of showers, court records show.

Federal and state officials have said those claims are part of a “false narrative” created by the media, and that the hunger strike only occurred after inaccurate reporting.

The lawsuit was filed in Baton Rouge federal court on behalf of Oscar Hernandez Amaya, a 34-year-old Honduran man who has been in ICE custody for two years. He was transferred to “Louisiana Lockup” last month from an ICE detention center in Pennsylvania.

Amaya fled Honduras two decades ago after refusing the violent MS-13 gang’s admonition “to torture and kill another human being,” the lawsuit alleges. The gang had recruited him at age 12, court documents say.

Amaya came to the United States, where he worked “without incident” until 2016. He was arrested that year and later convicted of attempted aggravated assault and sentenced to more than four years in prison. He was released on good-time credits after about two years and then transferred to ICE custody.

An immigration judge this year awarded Amaya “Convention Against Torture” protection from being returned to Honduras, the lawsuit says, but the U.S. government has failed to deport him to another country.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has been very clear that immigration detention cannot be used for punitive purposes,” Nora Ahmed, the ACLU of Louisiana’s legal director, told AP. “You cannot serve time for a crime in immigration detention.”

Mustian and Cline write for the Associated Press. Mustian reported from New York.

WILLIAMSPORT, Pa. — A federal judge ruled Thursday that President Trump’s former lawyer, Alina Habba, has been unlawfully serving as the the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey.

The court, saying the administration used “a novel series of legal and personnel moves,” held that Habba’s term as the interim U.S. attorney ended in July, and the Trump administration’s maneuvers to keep her in the role without getting confirmation from the U.S. Senate didn’t follow procedures required by federal law.

“Faced with the question of whether Ms. Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not,” Chief U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann wrote.

The opinion says that Habba’s actions since July “may be declared void.”

Brann, a President Obama appointee, said he’s putting his order on hold pending an appeal. It wasn’t immediately clear if that meant Habba would remain in charge of the U.S. attorney’s office.

A message seeking comment was sent to Habba’s office Thursday. The Justice Department said it intends to appeal the ruling.

Brann’s decision comes in response to a filing on behalf of New Jersey defendants challenging Habba’s tenure and the charges she was prosecuting against them. They sought to block the charges against them, arguing that Habba didn’t have the authority to prosecute the case after her 120-day term as interim U.S. attorney expired in July.

The defendants’ motion to block Habba, a onetime White House advisor to President Trump and his former personal defense attorney, is another high-profile chapter in her short tenure.

She made headlines when Trump named her U.S. attorney for New Jersey in March. She said the state could “turn red,” a rare, overt political expression from a prosecutor, and said she planned to investigate the state’s Democratic governor and attorney general.

She then brought a trespassing charge, which was eventually dropped, against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka stemming from his visit to a federal immigration detention center. Habba later charged Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver with assault stemming from the same incident, a rare federal criminal case against a sitting member of Congress other than for corruption. She denies the charges and has pleaded not guilty.

Volatility over her tenure unfolded in late July when the four-month temporary appointment was coming to a close and it became clear that she would not get support from home state Sens. Cory Booker and Andy Kim, both Democrats, effectively torpedoing her chances of Senate approval.

The president withdrew her nomination. Around the same time, federal judges in New Jersey exercised their power under the law to replace Habba with a career prosecutor when Habba’s temporary appointment lapsed, but Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi fired that prosecutor and renamed Habba as acting U.S. attorney.

In his opinion, Brann questioned the legal moves the administration conducted to keep Habba in place.

“Taken to the extreme, the President could use this method to staff the United States Attorney’s office with individuals of his personal choice for an entire term without seeking the Senate’s advice and consent,” he wrote.

The Justice Department has said in filings that the judges acted prematurely and that the executive has the authority to appoint his preferred candidate to enforce federal laws in the state.

Trump had formally nominated Habba as his pick for U.S. attorney on July 1, but Booker and Kim’s opposition meant that under long-standing Senate practice known as senatorial courtesy, the nomination would stall out.

A handful of other Trump picks for U.S. attorney are facing a similar circumstance.

Catalini writes for the Associated Press.

A federal judge has ruled that lawyer Alina Habba was unlawfully appointed to the role of acting United States attorney for the District of New Jersey

Thursday’s decision from District Judge Matthew Brann was a rebuke to the administration of President Donald Trump, who has sought to keep Habba, his former personal lawyer, in the role despite a previous court decision replacing her.

“Faced with the question of whether Ms Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not,” Brann wrote.

Brann accused the Trump administration of using “a novel series of legal and personnel moves” to keep Habba in her role as US attorney.

But, given the fact that Habba has not been officially confirmed to the position by the US Senate, Brann decided that her actions since July 1 “may be declared void”.

Brann, however, put his decision on hold pending a likely appeal from the Trump administration.

The challenge against Habba’s continued role as US attorney came from defendants in cases she was pursuing.

Two, Julien Giraud Jr and Julien Giraud III, were charged with drug and firearm-related offences. A third, Cesar Humberto Pina, was accused of laundering drug proceeds and participating in a “multi-million-dollar Ponzi-like investment fraud scheme”.

Lawyers for Pina released a statement praising the judge’s decision later on Thursday and calling for the Trump administration to follow federal procedure for appointing US attorneys.

“Prosecutors wield enormous power, and with that comes the responsibility to ensure they are qualified and properly appointed,” lawyers Abbe David Lowell and Gerald Krovatin wrote in the statement.

“We appreciate the thoroughness of the court’s opinion, and its decision underscores that this Administration cannot circumvent the congressionally mandated process for confirming US Attorney appointments.”

Trump clashes with judicial branch

Thursday’s court decision is likely to continue the power clash between President Trump and the judiciary, whom he has accused of being politically biased against him and his allies.

While Habba awaits a confirmation hearing before the US Senate, she has served in the US attorney position on an interim basis.

But such interim appointments are capped at a period of 120 days. Continuing beyond that time span requires approval from a panel of judges in the district.

The panel, however, declined Habba’s bid to stay in the role on July 22. It named her second-in-command, career prosecutor Desiree Grace, to replace her as US attorney.

But the Trump administration swiftly moved to reject the judges’ decision. Attorney General Pam Bondi fired Grace and said Habba would continue in her role regardless of the July 22 court order.

“This Department of Justice does not tolerate rogue judges,” Bondi wrote on social media.

The Justice Department, under Trump, has sought to retain term-capped interim US attorneys elsewhere as well.

But Habba’s handling of her position has drawn particular scrutiny, as has her close relationship with the president.

Habba was an early appointment to Trump’s second term. In December, just weeks after winning the 2024 presidential election, Trump revealed he would bring her into the White House as a counsellor for his administration.

Then, on March 24, he announced she would be his pick for US attorney for the New Jersey district.

Previously, Habba has represented Trump as a personal lawyer in several civil cases.

While she won one defamation suit brought against Trump by former reality TV contestant Summer Zervos, she lost two high-profile cases: a defamation suit brought by writer E Jean Carroll and a civil fraud case led by New York Attorney General Letitia James. Trump is currently appealing both of those decisions.

Questions surrounding Habba’s leadership

Since taking on the role of interim US attorney, Habba told a podcaster that she hoped to help “turn New Jersey red” – an indication she may use her traditionally nonpartisan position for partisan aims.

She has also led probes and prosecutions that critics denounced as politically motivated. In one instance, she opened an investigation into New Jersey’s Democratic Governor Phil Murphy over his immigration policies.

In another, she charged Newark Mayor Ras Baraka for trespassing after he attempted to join several Congress members on a tour of the Delaney Hall immigration detention facility.

Those charges were later dropped, and a member of Habba’s office was rebuked in court. “An arrest, particularly of a public figure, is not a preliminary investigative tool,” Judge Andre Espinosa told the prosecutor.

Baraka has since filed a civil complaint accusing Habba of “subjecting him to false arrest and malicious prosecution”.

Still, Habba has continued to pursue criminal charges against US Representative LaMonica McIver for assault during the same incident at Delaney Hall. McIver has called the charge a “blatant political attack”.

Judges say Berlin broke EU law by refusing Somali asylum seekers entry.

A Berlin court has ruled that Germany violated asylum law when it deported three Somali nationals at its border with Poland in a decision that challenges Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s aggressive new migration stance.

The three asylum seekers – two men and one woman – were turned back by border police at a train station in Frankfurt an der Oder, a city on Germany’s eastern border.

“The applicants could not demand to enter Germany beyond the border crossing,” the court said in a statement on Monday. “However, the rejection was unlawful because Germany is obliged to process their claims.”

Officials cited the asylum seekers’ arrival from a “safe third country” as grounds for their refusal.

But the court determined the expulsion was illegal under European Union rules, specifically the Dublin regulation, which requires Germany to assess asylum claims if it is the responsible state under the agreement.

It marks the first such legal ruling since Merz’s conservative-led coalition took office in February, riding a wave of anti-immigration sentiment that has helped boost the far-right Alternative for Germany party, now the country’s second largest political force in parliament.

Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt defended the deportations, saying the asylum system was failing under pressure. “The numbers are too high. We are sticking to our practice,” he told reporters, adding that the court would receive legal justifications for the government’s position.

Migration policies in doubt

But opposition lawmakers were quick to capitalise on the ruling. Irene Mihalic of the Greens called it “a severe defeat” for Merz’s government, accusing it of overstepping its powers “for populist purposes”.

“The border blockades were a rejection of the European Dublin system and have offended our European neighbours,” she said.

Karl Kopp, managing director of Pro Asyl, an immigration advocacy group, said the expulsion of the Somalis reflected an “unlawful practice of national unilateral action” in asylum policy and called for their return to Germany, the Reuters news agency reported.

The ruling also casts doubt on Merz’s wider migration agenda. In May, his government introduced a directive to turn back undocumented people at Germany’s borders, including those seeking asylum – a sharp departure from former Chancellor Angela Merkel’s more open policy during the 2015 migrant crisis.

Last month, the European Commission proposed a bloc-wide mechanism that would permit member states to reject asylum seekers who passed through a “safe” third country. The measure, widely criticised by rights groups, still awaits approval from national parliaments and the European legislature.

A federal judge in Vermont on Wednesday released a Russian-born scientist and Harvard University researcher from immigration custody as she deals with a criminal charge of smuggling frog embryos into the United States.

Colleagues and academics testified on Kseniia Petrova’s behalf, saying she is doing valuable research to advance cures for cancer.

“It is excellent science,” Michael West, a scientist and entrepreneur in the biotech industry, testified on Petrova’s research papers. He said he does not know Petrova, but has become acquainted with her published work, citing one in which she explains that “mapping embryonic development [can produce] novel ways of intervening in the biology of regeneration and aging.”

West said that Petrova’s medical research skills are highly sought after and that he himself would hire her “in a heartbeat.”

Petrova, 30, is currently in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service in Louisiana. She is expected to be brought to Massachusetts as early as Friday in preparation for a bail hearing next week on the smuggling charge, lawyers said in court.

“We are gratified that today’s hearing gave us the opportunity to present clear and convincing evidence that Kseniia Petrova was not carrying anything dangerous or unlawful, and that customs officers at Logan International Airport had no legal authority to revoke her visa or detain her,” Petrova’s lawyer, Gregory Romanovsky, said in a statement. “At today’s hearing, we demonstrated that Kseniia is neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk, and does not belong in immigration detention.”

Petrova had been vacationing in France, where she stopped at a lab specializing in splicing superfine sections of frog embryos and obtained a package of samples to be used for research.

As she passed through a U.S. Customs and Border Protection checkpoint in Boston Logan International Airport in February, Petrova was questioned about the samples. She told the Associated Press in an interview last month that she did not realize the items needed to be declared and was not trying to sneak anything into the country. After an interrogation, Petrova was told her visa was being canceled.

After being detained by immigration officials, she filed a petition in Vermont seeking her release. She was briefly detained in Vermont before she was brought to Louisiana.

Petrova was charged with smuggling earlier this month as U.S. District Judge Christina Reiss in Burlington, Vt., set the hearing date on her petition. Reiss ruled Wednesday that the immigration officers’ actions were unlawful, that Petrova didn’t present a danger, and that the embryos were non-living, non-hazardous and “posed a threat to no one.”

Romanovsky had asked Reiss to issue an order to stop the possibility of ICE re-detaining Petrova if she is also released from detention in Massachusetts.

Reiss said she was reluctant “to enjoin an executive agency from undertaking future actions which are uncertain” and would rely on U.S. Department of Justice attorney Jeffrey Hartman’s comments that the government has no intention at this time to rearrest Petrova.

Romanovsky had said Customs and Border Protection officials had no legal basis for canceling Petrova’s visa and detaining her.

The Department of Homeland Security had said in a statement on the social media platform X that Petrova was detained after “lying to federal officers about carrying substances into the country.” They allege that messages on her phone “revealed she planned to smuggle the materials through customs without declaring them.”

Harvard had said in a statement that the university “continues to monitor the situation.”

McCormack writes for the Associated Press.