In a week marked by controversial legal decisions and presidential action, the American justice system and the boundaries of executive power have once again taken center stage. On October 29, 2025, two separate but intertwined developments—one in the federal judiciary and the other in the White House—sparked intense debate about the rule of law, prosecutorial integrity, and the reach of presidential clemency.
First, a federal district judge in Los Angeles issued a ruling that a Trump-appointed prosecutor, Bill Essayli, had served unlawfully due to a lack of Senate confirmation. According to reporting from multiple sources, including The Sun Sentinel and Forbes, this decision is the latest in a string of similar judgments questioning the legality of temporary appointments to U.S. attorney positions during President Donald Trump’s second term. The ruling, however, may have limited practical effect for now. Judge J. Michael Seabright, a George W. Bush appointee, found that although Essayli’s tenure was unlawful, the indictments in question had been properly signed and presented by assistant U.S. attorneys (AUSAs), not by Essayli himself. “It is undisputed that the indictments here were signed by AUSAs,” Seabright wrote, adding, “there is no indication that Essayli had any involvement in the indictments or in the supervision of the cases.”
Seabright’s decision draws a sharp distinction between the California case and ongoing challenges in Virginia, where Lindsey Halligan, another Trump-installed prosecutor, is leading high-profile cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. In those instances, Halligan was reportedly the sole prosecutor involved at the outset, only bringing in other Justice Department lawyers after securing indictments. As a result, if Halligan’s appointment is ultimately ruled unlawful, the cases against Comey and James could be at serious risk of dismissal—a potential outcome that would reverberate throughout the legal and political spheres.
The legality of Halligan’s tenure remains unresolved as of this week, with district judges yet to rule on challenges brought by Comey and James. Legal experts suggest that if these appointments are found to violate the Constitution’s requirements for Senate confirmation, it could have far-reaching implications for how U.S. attorney’s offices are run, not only under Trump but for future administrations as well. Appellate courts have yet to weigh in, and the Supreme Court may eventually be called upon to settle the issue, setting a precedent for years to come.
While the judiciary grapples with questions of prosecutorial legitimacy, President Trump’s use of the pardon and commutation powers has drawn fierce criticism for what many see as a pattern of selective justice. The Sun Sentinel editorial board did not mince words in its assessment of Trump’s decision to commute the sentence of former U.S. Representative George Santos after less than three months of a seven-year term. Santos, who pleaded guilty to wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and lying to Congress, was expelled from the House of Representatives by a rare bipartisan vote—105 Republicans joined 211 Democrats in ousting him, making him only the sixth member ever expelled from Congress.
The editorial argued that Trump’s decision to free Santos was part of a broader trend: “The President of the United States doesn’t believe in punishing financial crimes unless he can allege them against political foes like Letitia James, New York’s attorney general.” In Santos’ case, Trump’s commutation also erased $374,000 in victim restitution and $205,000 in fines owed to taxpayers. The editorial pointed out that, according to Forbes, Trump’s pardons and commutations have collectively forgiven around $100 million in fines and $1.3 billion in victim restitution—an extraordinary sum by any measure.
Santos’ legal troubles may not be over, however. As the editorial noted, “Presidents can’t pardon crimes against state laws,” and the Nassau County district attorney in New York has signaled her intention to pursue charges now that federal authorities are out of the picture. Still, the message sent by Trump’s action is clear—and, to many, deeply troubling.
Trump’s controversial use of clemency powers has not been limited to Santos. The Sun Sentinel editorial cited a string of other high-profile, and often eyebrow-raising, pardons and commutations. Among them: Changpeng Zhao, founder of the cryptocurrency exchange Binance, who was pardoned after serving four months in prison for failing to prevent sanctioned countries and terrorist groups from moving money through his firm. The pardon, critics allege, could allow Zhao to resume control of Binance and facilitate its re-entry into the U.S. market. The editorial noted that while Zhao was lobbying for his pardon, Binance partnered with World Liberty Financial, a crypto company co-founded by the families of Trump and his Middle East envoy Zach Witkoff.
Other notable clemency recipients include Ross Ulbricht, founder of the Silk Road dark-web marketplace, who was convicted of conspiracy to distribute narcotics and money laundering; Rod Blagojevich, the former Democratic governor of Illinois, convicted of attempting to sell Barack Obama’s former Senate seat; Paul Walczak, a nursing home executive convicted of tax fraud (pardoned shortly after his mother attended a $1 million-per-person Trump fundraiser); Devon Archer, a former business partner of President Biden’s son Hunter Biden; and, most infamously, some 1,500 individuals convicted for their roles in the January 6 Capitol attack, pardoned or given commuted sentences on Trump’s first day back in office.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, a frequent critic of both Trump and what she describes as corruption in Washington, was blunt in her assessment: “If Congress does not stop this kind of corruption in pending market structure legislation, it owns this lawlessness.” The editorial also drew historical parallels, referencing Bill Clinton’s controversial pardon of billionaire oil trader Marc Rich, but concluded that Trump’s actions have pushed the boundaries of executive clemency even further.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Pam Bondi, acting under Trump’s direction, has reportedly directed the Justice Department to deemphasize financial crimes and limit enforcement of anti-bribery laws, even as the administration pursues aggressive prosecution of political opponents. The editorial concluded with a grim assessment: “It’s a demoralizing time for all conscientious career prosecutors, and for all law-abiding Americans. But if there’s such a thing as a good time to be a crook, this is it.”
As legal battles over the legitimacy of federal prosecutors continue and the debate over presidential pardons rages on, the American justice system finds itself at a crossroads. The coming months may determine not only the fate of high-profile defendants like James Comey and Letitia James, but also the public’s faith in the impartiality and integrity of the nation’s laws.
