SCOTUS Refuses To Take Up Dispute Over Whitaker’s Appointment

Matthew Whitaker, acting U.S. attorney general, attends the Presidential Medal of Freedom ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Friday, Nov. 16, 2018.(Photo by Cheriss May/NurPhoto)
Matthew Whitaker, acting U.S. attorney general, attends the Presidential Medal of Freedom ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Friday, Nov. 16, 2018.(Photo by Cheriss May/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is refusing to be drawn into a dispute over the appointment of Matthew Whitaker as the acting U.S. attorney general.

The justices on Monday rejected an appeal in a case dealing with gun rights that also included a challenge to President Donald Trump’s appointment of Whitaker to temporarily lead the Justice Department.

The appeal claims Whitaker’s appointment is illegal under federal law and asks the court to name Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as a party in the case, instead of Whitaker.

The Justice Department in November released an internal legal opinion supporting the legality of Whitaker’s appointment as acting attorney general. Trump has called Whitaker “a highly respected person.”

Former Attorney General William Barr has been nominated by Trump to again lead the Justice Department.

Latest News

Notable Replies

  1. This was to be expected.

  2. Avatar for paulw paulw says:

    So I assume they simply denied cert, which means there’s no actual ruling.

  3. SCOTUS’s way of saying, “We ain’t cleanin’ that up.”

  4. When will the media start telling the truth about the Supreme Court. That truth, which has been obvious since at least Bush v Gore, is that America does NOT have a “conservative” Supreme Court but rather Americs does have a Republican supreme court.

  5. Deceptive reporting from AP again. Scotus opted not to hear a case by a Colorado man who claimed he should be able to own a gun because his felonies were minor. Since they were not hearing the case there was no need to rule on anything and that is what they did.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

2 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for paulw Avatar for k_in_va Avatar for dangoodbar Avatar for misterneutron Avatar for georgeh Avatar for mkposs Avatar for middleway

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: