Patrick Wyrick

On April 10, 2018, President Trump nominated Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Patrick Wyrick to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. If confirmed, Wyrick, who is just 37 years old and has practiced law for just over ten years, will replace Judge David Russell, who assumed senior status on July 7, 2013. Patrick Wyrick is also on President Trump’s short list for the Supreme Court.

Despite his short legal career, Wyrick has made a name for himself as a protégé of current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt, for whom he worked during Pruitt’s tenure as Oklahoma Attorney General. Wyrick has taken far-right stances on a number of controversial issues. While working as the Solicitor General for the State of Oklahoma, Wyrick assisted Pruitt in dismantling environmental protections and was criticized for enabling Pruitt’s tight-knit relationship with oil and gas lobbyists. As reported by The New York Times and the Natural Resources Defense Council, Wyrick was part of exchanges in which Pruitt received talking points provided by oil, coal and gas lobbyists against environmental regulations, repeated those talking points, nearly verbatim, and then later accepted campaign funds from those same special interests. Wyrick, with Pruitt, also advocated for restrictions on women’s reproductive health, helped dismantle protections for workers, defended a law that attempted to codify religious intolerance toward Muslims, and even came under fire for allegedly attempting to mislead the U.S. Supreme Court during his defense of Oklahoma’s death penalty protocol.

Wyrick’s nomination is in keeping with the Trump Administration’s stated goal of filling the federal bench with judges who are hostile to government regulations that protect health and safety, the environment, consumers and workers, having once stated, “I think we have all sorts of basic fundamental Constitutional problems with the nature of the current administrative state.”

Alliance for Justice opposes Patrick Wyrick’s nomination. 

Introduction

On April 10, 2018, President Trump nominated Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Patrick Wyrick to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. If confirmed, Wyrick, who is just 37 years old and has practiced law for just over ten years, will replace Judge David Russell, who assumed senior status on July 7, 2013. Patrick Wyrick is also on President Trump’s short list for the Supreme Court.

Despite his short legal career, Wyrick has made a name for
himself as a protégé of current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Administrator Scott Pruitt, for whom he worked during Pruitt’s tenure as
Oklahoma Attorney General. Wyrick has taken far-right stances on a number of
controversial issues. While working as the Solicitor General for the State of
Oklahoma, Wyrick assisted Pruitt in dismantling environmental protections and
was criticized for enabling Pruitt’s tight-knit relationship
with oil and gas lobbyists. As reported by The
New York Times and the Natural
Resources Defense Council, Wyrick was part of exchanges in which Pruitt
received talking points provided by oil, coal and gas lobbyists against
environmental regulations, repeated those talking points, nearly verbatim, and
then later accepted campaign funds from those same special interests. Wyrick,
with Pruitt, also advocated for restrictions on women’s reproductive health,
helped dismantle protections for workers, defended a law that attempted to
codify religious intolerance toward Muslims, and even came under fire for
allegedly attempting to mislead the U.S. Supreme Court during his defense of
Oklahoma’s death penalty protocol.

Wyrick’s nomination is in keeping with the Trump
Administration’s stated goal of filling the federal bench with judges who are hostile
to government regulations that protect health and safety, the environment,
consumers and workers, having once stated, “I think we have all sorts of basic
fundamental Constitutional problems with the nature of the current
administrative state.”

As the Senate Judiciary Committee reviews Wyrick’s
controversial positions and activities during government service, it is worth
noting current committee Chairman Chuck Grassley’s statement
in opposing Caitlin Halligan, then Solicitor General of New York, to be a
judge on the D.C. Circuit: “Some of my colleagues have argued that we should
not consider this aspect of [Caitlin] Halligan’s record, because at the time
she was working as the Solicitor General of New York. But, no one forced Ms. Halligan
to approve and sign this brief.”

Likewise, as Sen. Ted Cruz stated as recently as May 2018,
opposing Mark Bennett’s nomination to the Ninth Circuit based on Bennett’s work
as Hawaii Attorney General, “[Bennett’s] record as Attorney General of Hawaii,
I believe, represents an advocacy position that is extreme and inconsistent
with fidelity to law, in particular, he was an aggressive advocate as attorney
general for gay marriage, he was an aggressive advocate demonstrating hostility
to the first amendment and political speech, and most significantly, he was-he
is an aggressive advocate for undermining the Second Amendment.” Relying on
this same standard that arguments of a government lawyer may be attributed to
that lawyer himself, we believe that the positions Wyrick took in the Attorney
General’s Office, “represent[] an advocacy position that is extreme[.]” His
record indicates that, as a federal judge, he would be a threat to civil
rights, the environment, and workers.

Notably, in 2015, President Obama nominated Suzanne Mitchell, a highly qualified Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma, to fill David Russell’s seat. She was voted out of committee on May 19, 2016, without opposition, and had the full support of both Oklahoma senators. Nevertheless, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell never allowed her confirmation to move forward. In fact, no judges were confirmed to the Western District of Oklahoma during Obama’s presidency despite vacancies in three of the seven seats. President Trump has now nominated three white men, including Wyrick, to fill these vacancies.

Alliance for Justice opposes Patrick Wyrick’s nomination.

Biography

Patrick Wyrick received his B.A. from the University of
Oklahoma in 2004, and his J.D. from the University of Oklahoma College of Law
in 2007.

After law school, Wyrick clerked for Judge James Payne of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. He then worked as
an associate at GableGotwals. In 2011, Wyrick became solicitor general for the
State of Oklahoma, working under then-Attorney General Scott Pruitt. As
solicitor general, Wyrick defended the placement of a Ten Commandments monument
at the Oklahoma State Capitol that the Oklahoma Supreme Court found
unconstitutionally used state property for “the use, benefit, or support” of a
system of religion. See Prescott v. Okla. Capitol Pres.Comm’n, 373 P.3d 1032 (Okla. 2015).

In 2017, Wyrick was appointed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court
by Republican Governor Mary Fallin. His appointment was met with some
controversy, due to allegations that Wyrick did not reside in the district that
he was appointed to represent. The ACLU filed suit,
which was ultimately dismissed
by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Wyrick also lists himself as counsel to
Wyrick Lumber Company.

Like many of Trump’s judicial nominees, Wyrick has been the
president of his local branch of the ultraconservative Federalist Society – an
outside organization to which Trump has delegated
important aspects of the judicial selection process.

Environment

Ties to Pruitt and Special Interests

Wyrick has a close relationship with President Trump’s EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, having worked for Pruitt when Pruitt was Oklahoma Attorney General. Pruitt has called Wyrick a “dear friend and trusted counselor.” Wyrick has called Pruitt a “champion of fighting regulatory overreach at both the federal and state level.” Wyrick’s praise of Pruitt extends to claims that people should “ensure that the positions exercising those oversight powers are filled by people – like Attorney General Pruitt – who are true believers in free market ideas and the power of innovation.”

In his notes from one speech, Wyrick wrote that “Pruitt’s time as AG came in a time in history where we had an administration [of President Obama] that was as aggressive as any in history in expanding federal power and aggregating power in Washington.”

While Pruitt was attorney general, he took part in exchanges in which he accepted campaign funds from oil, coal, and gas special interests after repeating verbatim the industry’s talking points against EPA regulations.

Wyrick was regularly involved in communicating these talking
points; Pruitt reportedly
followed “quite explicit” suggestions from anti- environmental lobbyists
that were directly facilitated by Wyrick.

According to email exchanges obtained through an
open-records request by The New York Times, Pruitt’s staff reportedly
took language out of letters from these special interests, “copied it onto
state government stationery with only a few word changes, and sent it to
Washington with the attorney general’s signature.”

For example, one official at Devon Energy – one of the
largest oil and gas companies in Oklahoma – directly emailed
Wyrick a draft letter in 2011 challenging Obama-era methane regulations. Then,
“Mr. Pruitt took the letter and, after changing just 37 words in the
1,016-word draft, copied it onto his state government letterhead and sent it to
Ms. [Lisa] Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator.” The Devon Energy lobbyist, Bill
Whitsett, later emailed
Wyrick and Pruitt’s chief of staff: “Outstanding! The timing of the letter
is great, given our meeting this Friday with both E.P.A. and the White House…
Please pass along Devon’s thanks to Attorney General Pruitt.”

In January 2013, the same Devon lobbyist emailed
Wyrick, “I just let General Pruitt know that BLM [Bureau of Land
Management] is going to propose a different version of its federal lands
hydraulic fracturing rule thanks to input received–thanks for the help on
this! We’ll see the new proposal sometime next week, I believe, and we’ll be
back in touch on potential next steps.” Weeks later, he followed
up in an email to Wyrick requesting a meeting and attaching a “draft letter
(or something like it that Scott [Pruitt] is comfortable talking from and
sending to the acting director to whom the letter is addressed)[.]” Then, he
sent Wyrick and other staff members instructions on how to submit the letter to
the regulatory bodies, as well as information on federal procedures and
additional requests. Wyrick’s deputy solicitor general responded,
“Thank you Bill, this helps! As you know, in addition to the letter we are
trying to get a call with OMB setup,” to which the lobbyist replied,
“Wonderful!” and asked for additional intel that Pruitt’s office
could obtain.

It is worth noting that Wyrick currently owns shares in Devon Energy Corporation, as listed in his financial disclosures.

Wyrick’s ties to Pruitt are made even more troubling by the
Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision to
deny further release of Scott Pruitt’s emails during his nomination to head the
EPA. Governor Mary Fallin named
Wyrick to serve on the Oklahoma Supreme Court on February 9, 2017.

On February 28, the Oklahoma Supreme Court blocked a
trial court’s order to have more of Pruitt’s emails released to the public. As
one local journalist observed
after the stay of the order to release the emails, “And here we are, with
Wyrick rightfully still appointed — and a Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court
until and unless something changes — sitting on a court which just issued an
indefinite stay on the release of his former boss’s [Scott Pruitt’s] emails. It
just looks bad.”

Challenges to Environmental Protections

• In Grocery Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 693 F.3d 169 (D.C. Cir. 2012), Wyrick argued in an amicus brief on behalf of Oklahoma that an EPA waiver allowing an increased amount of ethanol in certain fuels was unlawful. The EPA argued that the waiver was a legal regulation under the Clean Air Act, which authorizes the EPA to “establish emission standards and fuel controls” for motor vehicles, including the power to waive a prohibition. Wyrick’s brief supported the petitioners – trade associations concerned about an increase in the price of corn – who asked the Supreme Court to overturn the D.C. Circuit’s ruling in favor of the EPA. The Supreme Court declined, upholding the D.C. Circuit decision that the trade associations lacked standing to challenge the EPA’s policy.
• In EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014) (consolidated with American Lung Association v. EME Homer City Generation, No. 12-1183), Wyrick fought the EPA’s efforts to reduce pollution across state lines. Wyrick appeared on behalf of the state of Oklahoma before the D.C. Circuit, where he argued that the Court should vacate the EPA’s “Transport Rule.” See EME Homer CityGeneration, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The EPA issued this rule under the Clean Air Act to address the obligations of states upwind from pollution to reduce emissions. Several states and private plaintiffs challenged the rule, arguing that the EPA’s method for computing obligations exceeded its statutory authority.
• While the D.C. Circuit struck down the regulation, the Supreme Court ultimately reversed and upheld the EPA’s authority to create and enforce a federal plan addressing upwind polluters. Wyrick also appeared before the D.C. Circuit after the Supreme Court remanded the case, where he argued that the Transport Rule, while constitutional, was invalid as applied to individual states, including Oklahoma. See EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v.EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
• In Oklahoma v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2662 (2014) (cert denied), Wyrick petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn a Tenth Circuit ruling in favor of the Clean Air Act. The EPA had created a policy to limit emissions of sulfur dioxide, replacing an Oklahoma state plan with more stringent federal regulations. After Oklahoma challenged the stronger emissions standards, the Tenth Circuit found that the EPA had the authority to replace state plan. Notably, Wyrick accused the Sierra Club in his reply brief of “repeatedly misrepresent[ing] the record” to the Court. Despite this accusation, the Supreme Court denied Wyrick’s petition.
• In Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699 (2015) Wyrick again challenged the EPA’s authority pursuant to the Clean Air Act, this time arguing that the Act, which requires the EPA to regulate power plants when “appropriate and necessary,” was unreasonably interpreted when the EPA didn’t consider cost in its regulation. Wyrick is on the petition for Supreme Court review as well as three different briefs before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, agreed with the states, and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit.
• After the Supreme Court decided that the EPA must consider costs before imposing regulations, the D.C. Circuit on remand chose to keep in place prior EPA regulations imposed on power plants in order to “allow the agency to expeditiously cure the defect identified” by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the states sued again, arguing that a reviewing court may not leave an unlawful rule in place. Wyrick sought to have the Clean Air Act regulations at issue – emissions standards over toxic air pollutants produced by power plants – struck down. This time, Wyrick’s petition for Supreme Court review was denied.
• Finally, in FERC v. Elec. Power Supply Ass’n, 136 S. Ct. 760 (2016) Wyrick filed an amicus brief on behalf of Oklahoma, arguing that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) overstepped federal authority by issuing a regulation that pays utility users to reduce energy consumption at peak power rates, known as “demand response” pricing. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Elena Kagan, rejected Oklahoma’s arguments that the regulation infringed on exclusive state authority, finding that the federal government has authority over electricity operations “affecting” wholesale marketing and pricing.

Reproductive Rights

As Solicitor General of Oklahoma, Wyrick has fought
reproductive rights for women, including supporting laws that limit access to
contraception.

Wyrick defended
an Oklahoma law, HB 2226, that required minors to obtain a prescription
before purchasing Plan B. The law also placed an added requirement on adult
women, who would have had to show identification to prove their age before
buying Plan B – something not required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). The law was struck
down by the district court, which found that it unconstitutionally limited
women’s access to emergency contraception.

Later, Wyrick opposed contraception access by filing an amicus
brief in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.,
134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014). Wyrick is on the brief as counsel of record for the
state of Oklahoma, where he argued that the contraceptive mandate in the
Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional as applied to closely held
corporations.

Wyrick also advocated for limiting the use of drugs for medication abortions. See Okla. Coalition for ReproductiveJustice v. Cline, 368 P.3d 1278 (Okla. 2016). As solicitor general, Wyrick defended an Oklahoma law that restricted the use of abortion- inducing drugs in years-long litigation, including petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court. Critics of the law pointed out that “Forcing patients to undergo a more invasive surgical abortion when a safer, more effective option is available … is contrary to the practice of medicine.” Wyrick, in defense of the law, said, “Oklahoma’s Constitution does not include that right (to an abortion);” and “[n]o Oklahoma woman is being prevented by this act from getting an abortion….It places reasonable requirements on how those abortions are provided.” While a district court temporarily blocked parts of the bill from going into effect, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed.

Wyrick also filed an amicus
brief in Humble v. Planned Parenthood Ariz., Inc.,
753 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2014) asking the Supreme Court to overturn a Ninth
Circuit decision striking down Arizona’s law that limited access to drugs for
medication abortions. The Ninth Circuit held that the burden the law imposed on
a woman’s right to an abortion outweighed Arizona’s justification for the law.
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, leaving the Ninth Circuit’s
decision in place.

In Pruitt v. Nova
Health Sys., 571 U.S. 1010 (2013) (cert denied), Wyrick petitioned
the Supreme Court to overturn the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision to
strike down a pre-abortion ultrasound requirement. The Oklahoma Supreme Court
found the law unconstitutional under Planned
Parenthood v. Casey, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied Wyrick’s petition
for certiorari.

It is also notable that Wyrick is on President Trump’s short
list for the Supreme Court. President Trump has made clear he has a litmus
test for any potential Supreme Court nominee, requiring that the person
will “automatically” overturn Roe v. Wade.
Wyrick’s record bears out Trump’s confidence that he would pass this test.

Workers’ Rights

Wyrick includes among his “most significant litigated
matters” Coates v. Fallin, 316 P.3d 924 (Okla. 2013).13 In Coates, Wyrick fought an association of firefighters and
legislators who challenged Oklahoma’s sweeping workers’ compensation reform
law, S.B.
1062, the Administrative Workers Compensation Act. The Act – backed by
Republican Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin – converted Oklahoma’s court-based
workers’ compensation system into an administrative dispute resolution system.
Among the bill’s other provisions was a controversial “Opt
Out” clause that allowed employers out of the government-run system to reportedly
“give employers almost complete control over the medical and legal process
after workers get injured;” a cap
on compensation for employees who suffer temporary disability while on the
job; a lowering of the cap
on the amount of time employees who suffer permanent disability on the job
receive compensation (from 520 weeks to 350 weeks); a provision
that allowed employers to pick their employees’ doctor; and a provision
that allowed employers to force their employees into arbitration.

After the bill’s passing, critics claimed that the changes
to the system reportedly
slashed workers’ benefits by roughly $120 million. Wyrick served as lead
counsel to the state defendants against allegations
that the law “amounted to unconstitutional logrolling” by combining
multiple subjects into a single bill. The Oklahoma Supreme Court accepted
Wyrick’s argument that the structure of the bill was constitutional.

However, since the Act was originally upheld, it has been
repeatedly challenged. See Vazquez v. Dillard’s,Inc., 381 P.3d 768 (Okla. 2016); Robinson v. Fairview Fellowship Homefor Senior Citizens, Inc., 371 P.3d
477 (Okla. 2016); Maxwell v. Sprint PCS, 369 P.3d 1079
(Okla. 2016). In Vasquez v. Dillard’s Inc., Wyrick defended the
aforementioned “Opt Out” clause before the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The court
found that it was unconstitutional for the law to allow employers to opt out of
the state’s compensation scheme, since it “creates impermissible, unequal,
disparate treatment of a select group of injured workers[,]” and struck down
the provision. See Vasquez, 381 P.3d
at 770.

In Maxwell v. Sprint
PCS, workers challenged a provision of the law that deferred payments for a
permanent partial disability (like the harm to or loss of “hands, fingers,
arms, feet, toes, and eyes”) in cases in which the worker can return to work.
369 P.3d at 1084. The worker at issue in the case, Theresa Maxwell, suffered an
injury to her knee on the job, and her workers’ compensation benefits were
withheld after she returned to work, despite her physical injury and potentially
reduced earning capacity. Wyrick argued that the purpose of the deferral
provision was to ensure that employees who are disabled at work aren’t
inappropriately compensated when they don’t return. However, as Justice Noma
Gurich, writing for the Court, pointed out, “the deferral provision fails to
even remotely advance this interest. As discussed above, [Theresa] Maxwell
forfeited her permanent partial disability benefits by simply returning to work.” Id.
at 1091. Justice Gurich continued that under the statutory deferral scheme,
“An injured employee who returns to work receives no compensation for the
physical injury sustained and no compensation for a reduction in future earning
capacity, upending the entire purpose of the workers’ compensation system[.]” Id. at 1092-93.

Accordingly, the Court found
that deferring payments for permanent partial disability for workers who
eventually return to their jobs unconstitutionally violated their due process
rights to fair compensation. In a partial concurrence, two justices agreed with
striking down the relevant provision, but believed the court should have gone
farther to “cure the Legislature’s unconstitutional scheme [.]” Id. at 1095 (J. Colbert, concurring in
part and dissenting in part).

The Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act continues to
come under fire. Among the other sections the Oklahoma courts have excised are
one provision
that allowed employers to deny injured employees compensation benefits if
they had missed doctor’s appointments, and another
that prohibited workers’ compensation claims from workers that have been
employed less than 180 days.

After Wyrick joined the Oklahoma Supreme Court, he dissented
from a decision that awarded workers’ compensation benefits in MultipleInjury Trust Fund v. Garrett, 408
P.3d 169, 176 (Okla. 2017) (Wyrick, J., dissenting).

Death Penalty

Wyrick attracted controversy
for the presentation of his defense of Oklahoma’s death penalty protocol in
Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726
(2015). The Glossip case was brought by death row inmates in Oklahoma who
alleged that Oklahoma’s death row protocol was cruel and unusual.

Oklahoma’s use of the drug midazolam during the botched
execution of Clayton Lockett brought the protocol under extreme scrutiny.
During the execution, Lockett reportedly took
over 40 minutes to die after receiving the lethal injection, and his last words
were
“I feel my whole body burning.”

Wyrick served as counsel of record for the state of
Oklahoma, and argued the case before the Supreme Court. While the Court
eventually ruled in a 5-4 decision that the state’s protocol was
constitutional, Oklahoma and its attorneys, including Wyrick, came under fire
from the Supreme Court.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor directly criticized Wyrick from the
bench, accusing
the Oklahoma attorneys of attempting to mislead the Court:

I am substantially disturbed that in your brief you made
factual statements that were not supported by those sources [you cited, and
were] in fact directly contradicted. So nothing you say or read to me am I
going to believe, frankly, until I see with my own eyes in the context, okay?      

Sotomayor said she found “many”
examples of Wyrick’s team misleading the court. Justice Kagan also had harsh
words for the Oklahoma death penalty protocol, describing
it as “like being burned alive[.]”

Tribal Issues

Wyrick served as lead counsel and negotiator for the
Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office in a five-year dispute over water rights
with two of Oklahoma’s largest Indian tribes – the Chickasaw Nation and Choctaw
Nation of Oklahoma. See ChickasawNation & Choctaw Nation of Okla. v.Fallin, No. 5:11-cv-00927-W (W.D.
Okla. Aug. 18, 2011). The tribes sued
in order to block the granting of a water permit by the state to Oklahoma
City that they alleged violated a historic treaty between the tribes and the
state. Oklahoma City sought to take more water from lakes within the tribes’
territories, despite the tribes’authority
over those waters. Among the tribes’ concerns
were that Oklahoma City would make excessive withdrawals from the tribes’
lakes to combat drought, a strategy that had destroyed
the local economy of a neighboring lake during a previous drought.

Wyrick and the government argued
that the tribes had actually given up certain rights to the lakes years after
the signing of the original treaty with Oklahoma. While the District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma originally heard the case, it ultimately went
to mediation and was settled.

Wyrick has also fought tribal sovereignty in amicus briefs
and Supreme Court petitions on behalf of Oklahoma, including opposing
tribal immunity from suits brought by states in Michigan v. Bay Mills IndianCommunity, 134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014) and
Oklahoma v. Hobia, 136 S. Ct. 33
(2015); and arguing
against tribal court jurisdiction to adjudicate certain claims against
nonmembers in DollarGen. Corp. v. Miss. Band of ChoctawIndians, 136 S. Ct. 2159 (2016).

Gun Safety

As solicitor general, Wyrick signed an Attorney General Opinion pertaining to Oklahoma’s “permissive approach to recognition of [firearm] licenses from other states.” The opinion claims that Oklahoma residents can carry concealed or unconcealed handguns if they hold a valid license issued in another state.

Religious Bigotry

As solicitor general, Wyrick defended an amendment to the
Oklahoma Constitution that stated that Oklahoma courts “shall not consider
international law or Sharia Law” or “look to the legal precepts of other
nations or cultures.” See Awad v.Ziriax, 966 F. Supp. 2d 1198,
1200-01(W.D. Okla. 2013). An
Oklahoma district court struck down the amendment, and the Tenth Circuit
affirmed. Id. at 1202.

Voting Rights

Wyrick is on an amicus
brief on behalf of Oklahoma in support of a Virginia voting law that was
struck down by the Fourth Circuit. See LibertarianParty of Va. v. Judd, 718 F.3d 308
(4th Cir. 2013). For a third-party candidate to appear on a presidential ballot
in Virginia, he or she must gather a minimum number of signatures from voters.
The Virginia law at issue required that every ballot signature be witnessed by
a Virginia resident. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, and the law
was struck down for violating the First Amendment.

 Conclusion

Wyrick is an extremely young, ideological nominee whose work
as the protégé of an ethically compromised public official, Scott Pruitt,
should be troubling to all Americans. Wyrick’s work with oil and gas special
interests opposing environmental protections, his opposition to workers’ rights
and women’s rights, his attempts to codify hostility to Muslims, and his
misleading advocacy before the Supreme Court must be scrutinized by the Senate
Judiciary Committee.

Alliance for Justice opposes his confirmation.