Senate Senators Prosecute to Prevent Whitaker from Serving as Attorney General

Senate Democrats filed suit Monday to challenge President TrumpDonald John TrumpBrown Snard County Official Resigns After Criticism Lt.-Retired Lieutenant General Mourns Trump after Navy SEAL Attacks: "Disgusting" Senate Barrels Lead to Confrontation Over Trump's Court Decision MOREThe decision to appoint Matthew Whitaker Acting Attorney General.

The lawsuit brought by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sheldon WhitehouseSheldon WhitehouseSenators Presents Trump-Supported Criminal Justice Bill Three Ways House Members Can Fight Climate Change When Radical Policy Is Not On The Agenda Amazon appeals to NYC and northern Virginia for new offices | What will it mean for DC | Technology companies assume Trump against cyber-pact | Defense official warns against hacking (D-R.I.) And Mazie HironoMazie Keiko HironoWarren, 2020 Dems targets Hillicon Valley private immigration detention center operators: faltering Facebook after NYT report | Dems want an investigation from DOJ | HQ2 brings a new review on Amazon | Judge confirms indictments of Russian troll farms | A panel of cyber-moonshot unveils its recommendations Dems press the Justice Ministry to investigate Facebook after political attacks (D-Hawaii) in the US District Court of the District of Columbia marks the last challenge in what has been a succession of disputes over the acting appointment.

Democrats – all members of the Senate Judiciary Committee – argue in the 17-page complaint that Whitaker's appointment contravenes the constitution's appointment clause, which requires key federal officers to be appointed with assent and assent of the Senate.

Trump appointed Whitaker to the acting role earlier this month after the former Attorney General Jeff SessionsJefferson (Jeff) Beauregard SessionsTrump calls Schiff "Little Adam Schitt," Dem Top House Oversight Dem, who says he wants to do everything to make Mueller's findings public. Watchdog Group Calls for Disclosure of Whitaker Financial's Financial Information resigned at the request of the President. Whitaker had been Sessions' chief of staff, a role that does not need confirmation by the Senate.

"The US Senate has not consented to Mr. Whitaker holding any office in the federal government, let alone the highest office of the federal government. [Department of Justice], Said the Democrats.

"Indeed, before deciding to give consent to Mr. Whitaker's role, plaintiffs and other members of the Senate would have the opportunity to review his legal opinions, his affiliation with a corporation under criminal investigation for have defrauded consumers, and his public comments criticizing and proposing to limit ongoing investigations of the DOJ involving the president. "

Maryland was the first to challenge this decision as part of a lawsuit to protect the provisions of the Affordable Care Act that cover people with pre-existing conditions.

On Wednesday, lawyers in an immigration case before the Court of Appeals of the 2nd Circuit asked the court to make an interim order aimed at preventing the government from advancing the case in which Whitaker was Acting Attorney General.

And, on Friday night, lawyers in a gun rights case before the Supreme Court asked the judges to make an order with the same name as Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

After the Democrats said last week that they plan to continue the trial, some jurists have asked if it will survive the court. Some law professors have wondered if only the Democrats have the necessary prejudice to sue.

Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas Law School, said the Senate, as an institution, must be the one who claims to have been hurt by Trump's decision to appoint Whitaker.

Others, for their part, argued that government institutions could not sue other government institutions.

In their lawsuit, Blumenthal, Hirono and Whitehouse claim that Trump illegally denied them, as practicing US Senators, the right to vote on consent to Whitaker's appointment to the position.

"Illegally denying legislators their right to vote effectively deprives them of one of their fundamental powers and responsibilities," they said.

The complete cancellation of the vote, they said, is clearly a type of institutional prejudice sufficient to give them the right to sue.

Updated at 11:22