Donald Trump’s judicial nominee under fire for ties to Scott Pruitt

A nominee for the federal bench faced tough questions during his confirmation hearing Wednesday for work he did for former Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who now heads President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Democrat, questioned Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Patrick R. Wyrick, who was nominated to the Western District of Oklahoma, about his work in the Oklahoma Attorney General’s office in 2011, where he exchanged emails with Devon Energy, a donor to Mr. Pruitt.

According to Mr. Whitehouse, someone from the energy corporation emailed a draft letter to Justice Wyrick when he worked under Mr. Pruitt. The draft letter ended up being sent to the EPA by Mr. Pruitt nearly unedited, passing off the donor’s work as his own.

“It appears you shopped out the seal of Oklahoma to a special interest lobbyist for a donor company,” Mr. Whitehouse said.

Judge Wyrick told the Judiciary Committee he worked as a litigator for then- Attorney General Pruitt, so he would have forwarded any draft letter to someone else in the office, denying any wrongdoing.

Liberal advocacy groups see Justice Wyrick as a protégé of Mr. Pruitt, who they claim is too cozy with lobbyists for industries he is expected to regulate while overseeing the EPA.

“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,” the progressive Alliance for Justice noted in a report on Judge Wyrick’s record.

“Given your record on environmental issues, I wonder how you could expect anyone representing the EPA or environmental organization to feel they would get a fair shake in your courtroom. You have even said you think the entire administrative state is unlawful,” Mr. Whitehouse said.

Justice Wyrick denied that he believed the entire administrative state was unlawful, and explained he mentioned that in a past speech he had given about how to best represent clients.

Mr. Whitehouse also said Justice Wyrick was the “recipient of the most stunning rebuke” he had ever heard at the Supreme Court when Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the former litigator of making factual statements during one of his oral arguments that weren’t accurately cited in his brief.

“I certainly stand by the citations we made in that brief. She was mistaken with respect to the particular scientific evidence we cited,” Justice Wyrick responded. “The purpose of arguments is to sort those things out.”

Sen. James Lankford, Oklahoma Republican, defended the nominee’s record, saying he is very well respected in his home state.

“Small town guy. Grew up in a great situation,” Mr. Lankford said. “He is a very capable attorney and judge and will continue to serve Oklahoma and the nation well.”