Justices Urged to Review Whitaker's Appointment as Acting Attorney General
"This is the extraordinary case in which the identity of the successor is both contested and has important implications for the administration of justice nationally," Thomas Goldstein wrote in a court filing at the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday.
November 16, 2018 at 05:19 PM
5 minute read
Matt Whitaker, appearing on CNN. Credit: Screen grab from YouTube
The controversy over President Donald Trump's appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting U.S. attorney general moved to the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, where advocates want the justices to resolve legal questions about the lawyer temporarily leading the U.S. Justice Department.
Veteran Supreme Court advocate Thomas Goldstein of Washington's Goldstein & Russell filed a motion in a gun-related case asking the high court to substitute Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as acting attorney general and to decide the appointment question separate from the gun petition.
“We do want Rosenstein named the acting attorney general, but we say even if we're wrong, it would be better for everybody to know the answer to this because this is turning into a mess,” Goldstein said.
Legal scholars, members of Congress and others across the political spectrum have debated the legality of Whitaker's appointment, and Goldstein's court filing marked the latest challenge to the designation of Whitaker as acting attorney general.
Whitaker had been serving as chief of staff to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who resigned, at Trump's request, on Nov. 7. Critics of the appointment fear Whitaker, openly hostile to the special counsel's Russia investigation, will interfere in the ongoing matter. Rosenstein had been supervising Robert Mueller III, the special counsel, until Whitaker's appointment.
“This is the extraordinary case in which the identity of the successor is both contested and has important implications for the administration of justice nationally,” Goldstein wrote in his motion. The dispute potentially could arise in thousands of cases. “There is a significant national interest in avoiding the prospect that every district and immigration judge in the nation could, in relatively short order, be presented with the controversy over which person to substitute as Acting Attorney General,” he told the high court.
Goldstein's motion is similar to one he filed earlier this week, assisting Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh in the health care case Maryland v. United States. In that case, the state is seeking a preliminary injunction or substitution of Whitaker for Rosenstein. A Texas businessman facing federal criminal charges in St. Louis also claims Whitaker's appointment was illegal.
The gun case at the Supreme Court, Michaels v. Whitaker, is a challenge to a Federal Firearms Act provision that prohibits anyone who has been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison from possessing a firearm or ammunition. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against Michaels last year. Michael Zapin, a lawyer in Boca Raton, Florida, filed the certiorari petition in June and he is counsel with Goldstein on the motion that asks Rosenstein be named acting U.S. attorney general.
Goldstein's court filing addresses two legs of the Whitaker debate: the Constitution's appointments clause and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. The appointments clause divides officials into “principal” and “inferior” officers; principal officers must be confirmed by the Senate. The attorney general, as the head of the Justice Department, “is indisputably a principal officer,” Goldstein told the justices. Whitaker has not been confirmed by the Senate.
The Attorney General Succession Act designates the deputy attorney general as acting attorney general and the associate attorney general as immediate successor to the deputy attorney general, Goldstein wrote.
The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel on Wednesday issued a public opinion supporting Whitaker's appointment.
The opinion, written by Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel, said that Whitaker's designation as acting attorney general “accords with the plain terms of the Vacancies Reform Act, because he had been serving in the Department of Justice at a sufficiently senior pay level for over a year.”
Although the attorney general is a principal officer, the DOJ's legal memo concluded, “it does not follow that an Acting Attorney General should be understood to be one.” Engel added: “While a person acting as the Attorney General surely exercises sufficient authority to be an 'Officer of the United States,' it is less clear whether the Acting Attorney General is a principal office.”
The request to the justices in Michaels v. Whitaker is posted below:
Read more:
DOJ Memo Blesses Whitaker Appointment as Acting AG
Maryland Files First Court Challenge to Trump's Acting AG Appointment
Quotable Matt Whitaker: Nothing Sticks to Trump, 'Even Being a Misogynist'
Meet Matt Whitaker, the Acting Attorney General and Mueller Critic
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
5th Circuit Strikes Down Law Barring Handgun Sales to Adults Under 21
What’s at Stake in Supreme Court Case Over Religious Charter School?
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
