"The simple answer is that Mr. Essayli is exercising power he does not possess. He has transcended the land of statutes. He is wielding significant authority, but the whole point is that he lacks that authority: it was not validly conferred on him by Congress. No powers are conferred on " a FAUSA" by statute, id., because the FAUSA position is absent from the statutes, R.M. 9-10."
"But this FAUSA has inferior-officer powers, because he is exercising powers he has never been conferred. E.g., R.M. 9 & n.2. This is just another way for the government to cast the trick it has played in benign language: appoint an ineligible individual to a vacant office, give him a different title not set out in the statutes, and thereby avoid all statutory limits on the appointment."
Bill Essayli continues performing most functions of U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles despite a ruling that he is not lawfully the U.S. Attorney. He uses textual gimmicks such as adding the initials "F.A." in his social profile to obscure his title. The label "FAUSA" is absent from the statutes, so no statutory powers attach to it. Essayli is exercising authority without valid congressional conferment and appears to be wielding inferior-officer powers he was never appointed to hold. The government’s approach involves appointing an ineligible individual under a different title to evade statutory appointment limits, and related identity disputes are arising in other districts amid immigration doxing prosecutions.
Read at emptywheel
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]