Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker. Photo: Douglas Graham/CQ Roll Call via Getty Images

President Trump's decision to replace Attorney General Jeff Sessions with Matthew Whitaker is facing new questions, with two prominent attorneys — including the husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway — suggesting that it may be illegal.

Why it matters: Axios spoke to multiple legal experts and former Justice Department officials who say they can't remember a similar case where someone not confirmed by the Senate has been named as acting attorney general. They have different interpretations of the laws, but they agree that the naming of Whitaker is in uncharted legal territory and leaves room for challenges to the legality — and constitutionality — of Trump's actions.

What they're saying: Attorneys Neal Katyal and George Conway called Trump's action illegal in an op-ed published in the New York Times Thursday afternoon. They say the Constitution requires that anyone serving as attorney general be confirmed by the Senate.

The details: While the Vacancies Reform Act gives the president the power to choose a temporary replacement for attorney general (as long as the attorney general was not fired), the Constitution dictates that anyone serving in a "principal role" must be confirmed by the Senate.

Here are the legal and constitutional issues raised by the Whitaker appointment:

1. The Attorney General Succession Act, Section 508, stipulates that when there is a vacancy in the office of the attorney general, the deputy attorney general — currently Rod Rosenstein — can serve as the attorney general. Next in line would be the associate attorney general.

2. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 allows the president to choose any senior DOJ official to serve as an acting attorney general as long as that person has already served in a high-level position for 90 days. Whitaker qualifies for the temporary position under this Act.

  • There have been arguments on both sides over whether the act supplants the AG succession law, John Bies, former deputy assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel, told Axios.
  • "I think it’s pretty clear under the terms of the statute itself that [Trump] has authority ... to appoint someone who is a senior DOJ official," he said.
  • "The Vacancy Act has precedence [over the Succession Act] when the president picks someone under that procedure," another DOJ lawyer texted us.

3. The Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 is the big caveat that Conway and Katyal argue leaves zero wiggle room for Whitaker. The Constitution specifies that "principal officers" must be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate.

"We cannot tolerate such an evasion of the Constitution’s very explicit, textually precise design. Senate confirmation exists for a simple, and good, reason. Constitutionally, Matthew Whitaker is a nobody. His job as Mr. Sessions’s chief of staff did not require Senate confirmation. ... For the president to install Mr. Whitaker as our chief law enforcement officer is to betray the entire structure of our charter document."
— Conway and Katyal in their NYT op-ed

The other side: Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores emailed, "The VRA was passed in 1998 and Acting Attorney General Whitaker's appointment was made pursuant to the procedures approved by Congress."

One big question: Whether a temporary position is considered a principal role. In October 2016, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that even a temporary appointment of someone who was not confirmed by the Senate would violate the clause in the Constitution.

  • Yes, but David Rivkin, a constitutional lawyer who has served in previous administrations, told us: "When you put someone in an acting capacity, that person doesn’t occupy an official office, so the appointments clause doesn’t apply in this case at all. It’s temporary."

The bottom line: Even John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California-Berkeley who helped the George W. Bush administration draft its expansive claims to executive power, says the Whitaker appointment may be out of line.

"The Constitution says that principal officers must go through appointment with the advice and consent of the Senate. In Morrison v. Olson, the Supreme Court made clear that the Attorney General is a principal officer. Therefore, Whittaker cannot serve as acting Attorney General despite the Vacancies Act (which does provide for him to be acting AG) — the statute is unconstitutional when applied in this way."
— John Yoo in an email

Editor's note: This story has been updated to reflect a new quote from DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores.

Go deeper

Trump, Biden strategies revealed in final ad push

Data: Bully Pulpit Interactive; Chart: Danielle Alberti/Axios

President Trump is pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into Facebook ads on the Supreme Court and conservative judges in the final stretch of his campaign, while Joe Biden is spending over a million on voter mobilization, according to an analysis by Axios using data from Bully Pulpit Interactive.

The big picture: Trump's Facebook ad messaging has fluctuated dramatically in conjunction with the news cycle throughout his campaign, while Biden's messaging has been much more consistent, focusing primarily on health care and the economy.

How NASA and the Space Force might fare under Biden

Illustration: Eniola Odetunde/Axios

Joe Biden hasn't gone out of his way to talk about outer space during his presidential campaign. That could be bad news for NASA's exploration ambitions, but good news for the Space Force.

The big picture: NASA faces two threats with any new administration: policy whiplash and budget cuts. In a potential Biden administration, the space agency could get to stay the course on the policy front, while competing with other priorities on the spending side.

58 mins ago - Health

Axios-Ipsos poll: Federal response has only gotten worse

Data: Axios/Ipsos poll; Note ±3.3% margin of error for the total sample size; Chart: Andrew Witherspoon/Axios

Americans believe the federal government's handling of the pandemic has gotten significantly worse over time, according to the latest installment of the Axios/Ipsos Coronavirus Index.

Why it matters: Every other institution measured in Week 29 of our national poll — from state and local governments to people's own employers and area businesses — won positive marks for improving their responses since those panicked early days in March and April.