Federal Courts and Nominations

Blumenthal, et al. v. Whitaker

Holding President Trump accountable for evading the Senate’s advice-and-consent role through his designation of Matthew Whitaker to serve as Acting Attorney General.

Case Summary

On November 7, after months of signaling his displeasure with Attorney General Jeff Sessions over Mr. Sessions’ perceived lack of loyalty, President Donald J. Trump asked him to resign. Even though Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who would be Acting Attorney General under the DOJ succession statute, is available to exercise the functions and duties of the office of Attorney General, President Trump designated Sessions’ chief of staff, Matthew Whitaker, to serve as Acting Attorney General. The U.S. Senate has not given its consent to Mr. Whitaker serving as Attorney General (or any other principal Officer position in the United States).

CAC, along with co-counsel Protect Democracy, filed a complaint for declarative and injunctive relief on behalf of Senators Richard Blumenthal, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Mazie K. Hirono. Our complaint alleges the President’s designation of Mr. Whitaker to perform the functions and duties of the office of Attorney General violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.  As the complaint explains, had Mr. Whitaker been formally nominated to serve as a principal Officer within the Department of Justice, members of the Senate would have had the opportunity to consider public comments he has made criticizing and proposing to curtail ongoing DOJ investigations that implicate the President, his espoused legal views, and his affiliation with a company that is under criminal investigation for defrauding consumers. It is precisely so that matters like these can be thoroughly examined by Senators that the Constitution prohibits the appointment of principal federal Officers without the Senate’s advice and consent. That safeguard, the Framers recognized, helps prevent the President from appointing Officers with “no other merit than that of . . . possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure,” The Federalist No. 76 at 458 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961).

Case Timeline

  • November 19, 2018

    CAC and Protect Democracy file a complaint on behalf of U.S. Senators

    D.D.C. Original Complaint
  • February 19, 2019

    CAC and Protect Democracy file notice voluntarily dismissing the case after a new Attorney General is confirmed

More from Federal Courts and Nominations

Federal Courts and Nominations
January 17, 2024

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Sign-On Letter Prioritizing Diverse Judges

Dear Senator, On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the...
Federal Courts and Nominations
July 31, 2023

Liberal justices earn praise for ‘independence’ on Supreme Court, but Thomas truly stands alone, expert says

Fox News
Some democrats compare Justice Clarence Thomas to ‘Uncle Tom’ and house slave in ‘Django Unchained’
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, By Brianna Herlihy
Federal Courts and Nominations
July 7, 2023

In Her First Term, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘Came to Play’

The New York Times
From her first week on the Supreme Court bench in October to the final day...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, by Adam Liptak
Federal Courts and Nominations
July 8, 2023

The Supreme Court’s continuing march to the right

Major legal rulings that dismantled the use of race in college admissions, undermined protections for...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, by Tierney Sneed
Federal Courts and Nominations
June 25, 2023

Federal judge defends Clarence Thomas in new book, rejects ‘pot shots’ at Supreme Court

A federal appeals court judge previously on short lists for the Supreme Court is taking the rare...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra
Federal Courts and Nominations
May 1, 2023

Supreme Court, done with arguments, turns to decisions

Roll Call
The justices have released opinions at a slow rate this term, and many of the...
By: Brianne J. Gorod, By Michael Macagnone