SPONSORED:

Supreme Court refuses to review legality of Whitaker as acting AG

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a challenge to the legality of President TrumpDonald TrumpDonald Trump Jr. calls Bruce Springsteen's dropped charges 'liberal privilege' Schiff sees challenges for intel committee, community in Trump's shadow McConnell says he'd back Trump as 2024 GOP nominee MORE’s decision to name Matthew Whitaker acting attorney general.

The request came in a case, which the court also refused to review, disputing the constitutionality of the lifetime ban on felons owning guns when it’s applied to someone who served their sentence a long time ago and has since been a law abiding citizen.

ADVERTISEMENT

Attorneys for Barry Michaels, the Nevada man at the center of the Second Amendment case, argued that under the federal succession statute Senate-confirmed Deputy Attorney General Rod RosensteinRod RosensteinRosenstein: Zero tolerance immigration policy 'never should have been proposed or implemented' Comey argues Trump shouldn't be prosecuted after leaving Oval Office Trump turns his ire toward Cabinet members MORE automatically became acting attorney general after former Attorney General Jeff SessionsJefferson (Jeff) Beauregard SessionsManchin flexes muscle in 50-50 Senate Udalls: Haaland criticism motivated 'by something other than her record' Ocasio-Cortez targets Manchin over Haaland confirmation MORE stepped down in November, and that Whitaker’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

Thomas Goldstein, one of Michaels's attorneys, noted that Whitaker’s actions on anything from appointing immigration judges to overseeing special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) MuellerWhy a special counsel is guaranteed if Biden chooses Yates, Cuomo or Jones as AG Barr taps attorney investigating Russia probe origins as special counsel CNN's Toobin warns McCabe is in 'perilous condition' with emboldened Trump MORE’s Russia investigation could be challenged in court if his appointment is later found to be invalid.

“If this Court declines to resolve this question immediately and instead determines several months in the future that Mr. Whitaker’s appointment was always invalid, then ‘unwinding’ all of those personal orders would be a fraught and disruptive exercise that could embroil the federal courts in innumerable collateral disputes,” Michaels's attorneys wrote in a brief.

The justices denied review of both Michaels’s case and Whitaker’s role as acting attorney general in the case.

At least four justices are needed to agree to review a case.

Updated at 10:19 a.m.