For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices or call 213-229-5424.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Law Practice,
Constitutional Law

Nov. 23, 2018

Acting US AG’s views on Marbury may require new tactics from president’s opponents

Matthew Whitaker’s argument was a warning flare illuminating a new battlefield confronting public interest lawyers as they seek civil rights traction at a time when Trump maneuvers to hobble expanded judicial oversight.

Acting US AG’s views on Marbury may require new tactics from president’s opponents
Acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew G. Whitaker, third from left, at a Presidential Medal of Freedom ceremony at the White House on Nov. 16. On his left are Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. On the right is Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.

By John Roemer
Special to the Daily Journal

Federal judges' most basic power -- to decide constitutional issues -- was challenged when President Donald Trump's acting attorney general was disclosed to have assailed the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision underpinning broad judicial authority.

Matthew G. Whitaker, for now the nation's top lawman, appeared to contend that the Supreme Court ...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up

Related Content

Constitutional Law

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n

State commission may not enforce public accommodation law against baker refusing gay patrons where such commission acts with 'hostility' toward genuinely-held religious beliefs.



By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.