The @steve_vladeck bat signal going out.
1) Questions as to whether Chad Wolf's appointment was legal, given that McAleenan amended the line of succession two days after his 210 days ran out, and;
2) 🚨Brand new questions as to *McAleenan's* appointment!
1) Questions as to whether Chad Wolf's appointment was legal, given that McAleenan amended the line of succession two days after his 210 days ran out, and;
2) 🚨Brand new questions as to *McAleenan's* appointment!
@steve_vladeck The potential issue around Wolf's appointment is something I flagged a couple days ago, but since I'm not a Vacancies Reform Act expert, I could only raise the question.
The McAleenan issue is brand new, to my knowledge.
The McAleenan issue is brand new, to my knowledge.
@steve_vladeck Here's the order of succession for DHS, last updated on 04/10/2019 (the day Nielsen resigned).
Annex A, which updated the line of succession so McAleenan could become Acting Secretary, is only mentioned in II(B)—but it seems they did NOT update II(A), which covers resignations!
Annex A, which updated the line of succession so McAleenan could become Acting Secretary, is only mentioned in II(B)—but it seems they did NOT update II(A), which covers resignations!
@steve_vladeck This document seems to indicate that when McAleenan took office, Section II(A), which provides the line of succession "In case of the Secretary’s [] resignation," required DHS to follow the old order of succession—where McAleenan was third in line. Did DHS screw it up this badly?
@steve_vladeck The other possibly way this error occured is if DHS *only* amended Annex A, but did NOT amend the 12/15/2016 "Orders of Succession and Delegations of Authorities for Named Positions" which sets out when Annex A is used—perhaps not realizing Annex A doesn't apply to resignations?
