Stopping short of saying the deal wasn't legally binding, Gove danced around the issue by saying the proposals could be scuppered by European institutions.
"The European Court of Justice interprets the European Union treaties and until this agreement is embodied in Treaty change then the European Court of Justice is not bound by this agreement," he told the BBC.
"What David Cameron has got is an agreement amongst 28 nation states. It's an international law declaration."
While noting that Cameron "had not been misleading anyone" over suggestions of the legality of the reforms, Gove claimed the proposals could face ECJ opposition as they are not part of an EU treaty.
"I do think it's important that people also realize that the European Court of Justice stands above every nation state, and ultimately it will decide on the basis of the treaties and this deal is not yet in the treaties," he said.
"I can only state what the facts are, and the facts are the ECJ is not bound by this agreement until treaties are agreed."
Michael Gove's new found legal knowledge can be best summed up by this. pic.twitter.com/iOsZ2ewV2M
— John Prescott (@johnprescott) February 24, 2016
Gov't Hits Back
The comments and subsequent reporting of the issue set off a flurry of responses from politicians and legal experts in the UK and Europe, with British government officials dismissing concerns over the legality of the newly negotiated agreement.
"It is not true that this deal is not legally binding. Britain's new settlement in the EU has legal force and is an irreversible international law decision that requires the European Court of Justice to take it into account," a government spokesperson said.
Dominic Grieve MP QC slaps down Michael Gove's scaremongering #r4today Suggests he consults a legal specialist within his department.
— Clapton Blues (@garyfoskett) February 24, 2016
Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, solicitor general Robert Buckland MP and current Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP backed the government's stance and eased to halt concerns over the legality of London's new EU deal.
"The suggestion that this agreement does not have legal effect until it is incorporated into EU treaties is not correct," Mr Wright said.
"It has legal effect from the point the UK says it intends to remain in the EU, and the European Court must take it into account. The job of the European Court is to interpret the agreements between the 28 nation states of the EU. This is one of those agreements, with equivalent legal force to other agreements such as treaties."
'Fluffed Up Political Promise'
However the legal row has raised more concerns about any potential legal hurdles the UK-EU agreement may face, with pro-Brexit campaigners in the UK claiming the deal may not eventuate into EU treaty chance.
@Nigel_Farage @BBCNews Not could….WILL…it us simply a question of when. I'll give you a heads up…it won't be before June 24th 2016
— Tony Homewood (@TonyHomewood) February 24, 2016
Swedish MEP Max Andersson, epitomized the confusion over the deal's legality during an address to the European Parliament on Tuesday.
"I have a great difficulty understanding whether this deal is really legally binding. The European Council does not have the right to decide on treaty changes. It cannot decide what future governments will say in a matter of many years. It cannot decide what parliaments will say or what those countries that will have referendums will say.
"This document claims it is legally binding and says the substance of it will be incorporated into treaties in accordance with procedure blah blah blah. This means either this treaty is not legally binding, or the European Council has committed a massive over-reach, almost a coup d'etat or this is not really a legally binding document."
"It is a fluffed up political promise that is going to be lodged at the United Nations," he added.
