Report of People For the American Way in Opposition to
the Nomination of William G. Myers III to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals
Introduction
President Bush’s
nomination of former Interior Department Solicitor William G. Myers to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has generated
substantial concern from many Americans dedicated to protecting the
environment, civil rights, and a truly independent judiciary. The Ninth
Circuit includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, states that contain many of
America’s natural treasures, making the issue of environmental
protection particularly significant in considering nominations to that
court. But Myers has spent most of his career challenging or
undermining, rather than defending, laws and rules that seek to protect
our environment, even at the Department of the Interior. He has shown
an alarming insensitivity to the heritage and traditions of Native
Americans and demonstrated a strong hostility toward federal
environmental protection, including the power of Congress to enact laws
to protect the environment, leading to a recent rebuke by a federal
judge. Indeed, his views on limiting Congress’ authority and
elevating private property rights, as well as his favorable comments
about rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, raise serious concerns
about his legal philosophy.
Myers has dedicated much of his career to advocating on behalf of grazing, mining, and other interests
seeking to use federal lands for their own benefit, sometimes at the
expense of the environment. From 1993 1997, he was employed as
Director, and later Executive Director, of the National
Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Public Lands
Council. From 1997 2001, he was of counsel to the firm of
Holland & Hart, spending most of his time representing the interests of
public lands industries and serving as corporate counsel for Cattlemen
Advocating Through Litigation (CATL), the litigation branch of the
Public Lands Council. During this time, Myers was also a registered
lobbyist for a number of resource extracting interests, including Arch
Coal and Peabody Coal. He served as Solicitor for the
Department of the Interior from 2001 2003, when he resigned to return
to Holland & Hart. It may be that Myers’ focus on lobbying,
rather than significant litigation or other actual practice of law, is
among the reasons why the American Bar Association’s Standing
Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave Myers its lowest passing grade
Qualified, with a minority voting Not Qualified.
Unfortunately, the evidence strongly suggests that Myers did not
leave his pro-industry, anti-environmental advocacy behind when he left
private practice for public service. As Solicitor for the Department of
the Interior, Myers continued to aggressively advocate on behalf of
miners, cattlemen, ranchers and others who wish to exploit public lands
for their own benefit. In evaluating his career at Interior, an Idaho
Statesman editorial found that “Myers sounds less like an
attorney, and more like an apologist for his old friends in the cattle
industry.” This conclusion is central to the most
troubling aspects of Myers’ record, both inside and outside of
government: his disregard and disrespect for Native American concerns;
his continued promotion of industry interests at Interior and his
hostility toward federal government protection of the environment; and
his disturbing legal philosophy. Just as his record shows that Myers
brought his anti-environmental views with him when he assumed the very
different role of a federal official, so is there every reason for
concern that he will bring his troubling views and legal philosophy with
him if he becomes a powerful federal appellate judge. For these
reasons, as discussed in detail below, Myers’ confirmation to a
lifetime position on the important Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit should be rejected.
Read more:
