AFJ NOMINEE REPORT patrick Wyrick

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma WWW. AFJ.ORG CONTENTS

Introduction, 1 Biography, 2 environment, 3 reproductive rights, 6 workers’ Rights, 7 death penalty, 9 Tribal Issues, 9 gun safety, 10 religious bigotry, 10 voting rights, 10 Conclusion, 11

WWW.AFJ.ORG PAGE 1

reproductive health, helped dismantle protections for workers, defended a Introduction law that attempted to codify religious intolerance toward Muslims, and even On April 10, 2018, President Trump came under fire for allegedly nominated attempting to mislead the U.S. Justice Patrick Wyrick to the U.S. Supreme Court during his defense of District Court for the Western District Oklahoma’s death penalty protocol. of Oklahoma. If confirmed, Wyrick, Wyrick’s nomination is in keeping with who is just 37 years old and has the Trump Administration’s stated practiced law for just over ten years, goal of filling the federal bench with will replace Judge David Russell, who judges who are hostile to government assumed senior status on July 7, 2013.1 regulations that protect health and Patrick Wyrick is also on President safety, the environment, consumers Trump’s short list for the Supreme and workers, having once stated, “I Court. think we have all sorts of basic Despite his short legal career, Wyrick fundamental Constitutional problems has made a name for himself as a with the nature of the current 2 protégé of current Environmental administrative state.” Protection Agency (EPA) As the Senate Judiciary Committee Administrator , for whom reviews Wyrick’s controversial he worked during Pruitt’s tenure as positions and activities during Oklahoma Attorney General. Wyrick government service, it is worth noting has taken far-right stances on a current committee Chairman Chuck number of controversial issues. While Grassley’s statement in opposing working as the Solicitor General for the Caitlin Halligan, then Solicitor General State of Oklahoma, Wyrick assisted of New York, to be a judge on the D.C. Pruitt in dismantling environmental Circuit: “Some of my colleagues have protections and was criticized for argued that we should not consider enabling Pruitt’s tight-knit relationship this aspect of [Caitlin] Halligan’s with oil and gas lobbyists. As reported record, because at the time she was by and the working as the Solicitor General of Natural Resources Defense Council, New York. But, no one forced Ms. Wyrick was part of exchanges in which Halligan to approve and sign this Pruitt received talking points provided brief.” by oil, coal and gas lobbyists against environmental regulations, repeated Likewise, as Sen. Ted Cruz stated as those talking points, nearly verbatim, recently as May 2018, opposing Mark and then later accepted campaign Bennett’s nomination to the Ninth funds from those same special Circuit based on Bennett’s work as interests. Wyrick, with Pruitt, also Hawaii Attorney General, “[Bennett’s] advocated for restrictions on women’s record as Attorney General of Hawaii, I

WWW.AFJ.ORG PAGE 2 believe, represents an advocacy position that is extreme and inconsistent with fidelity to law, in Biography particular, he was an aggressive Patrick Wyrick received his B.A. from advocate as attorney general for gay the in 2004, marriage, he was an aggressive and his J.D. from the University of advocate demonstrating hostility to the Oklahoma College of Law in 2007. first amendment and political speech, After law school, Wyrick clerked for and most significantly, he was-he is an Judge James Payne of the U.S. District aggressive advocate for undermining Court for the Eastern District of the Second Amendment.”3 Relying on Oklahoma. He then worked as an this same standard that arguments of a associate at GableGotwals. In 2011, government lawyer may be attributed Wyrick became solicitor general for to that lawyer himself, we believe that the State of Oklahoma, working under the positions Wyrick took in the then-Attorney General Scott Pruitt. As Attorney General’s Office, “represent[] solicitor general, Wyrick defended the an advocacy position that is extreme[.]” placement of a Ten Commandments His record indicates that, as a federal monument at the Oklahoma State judge, he would be a threat to civil Capitol that the Oklahoma Supreme rights, the environment, and workers. Court found unconstitutionally used Notably, in 2015, President Obama state property for “the use, benefit, or nominated Suzanne Mitchell, a highly support” of a system of religion. See qualified Magistrate Judge for the Prescott v. Okla. Capitol Pres. Western District of Oklahoma, to fill Comm’n, 373 P.3d 1032 (Okla. 2015). David Russell’s seat. She was voted out In 2017, Wyrick was appointed to the of committee on May 19, 2016, without Oklahoma Supreme Court by opposition, and had the full support of Republican Governor . His both Oklahoma senators. Nevertheless, appointment was met with some Majority Leader Mitch McConnell never controversy, due to allegations that allowed her confirmation to move Wyrick did not reside in the district forward. In fact, no judges were that he was appointed to represent. confirmed to the Western District of The ACLU filed suit, which was Oklahoma during Obama’s presidency ultimately dismissed by the Oklahoma despite vacancies in three of the seven Supreme Court. Wyrick also lists seats. President Trump has now himself as counsel to Wyrick Lumber nominated three white men, including Company.4 Wyrick, to fill these vacancies. Like many of Trump’s judicial Alliance for Justice opposes Patrick nominees, Wyrick has been the Wyrick’s nomination. president of his local branch of the ultraconservative –

WWW.AFJ.ORG PAGE 3 an outside organization to which Wyrick was regularly involved in Trump has delegated important communicating these talking points; aspects of the judicial selection Pruitt reportedly followed “quite process.5 explicit” suggestions from anti- environmental lobbyists that were directly facilitated by Wyrick. Environment According to email exchanges obtained through an open-records I. Ties to Pruitt and Special request by The New York Times, Pruitt’s staff reportedly took language Interests out of letters from these special interests, “copied it onto state Wyrick has a close relationship with government stationery with only a few President Trump’s EPA Administrator, word changes, and sent it to Scott Pruitt, having worked for Pruitt Washington with the attorney when Pruitt was Oklahoma Attorney general’s signature.” General. Pruitt has called Wyrick a “dear friend and trusted counselor.” For example, one official at Devon Wyrick has called Pruitt a “champion Energy – one of the largest oil and gas of fighting regulatory overreach at companies in Oklahoma – directly 6 both the federal and state level.” emailed Wyrick a draft letter in 2011 Wyrick’s praise of Pruitt extends to challenging Obama-era methane claims that people should “ensure regulations. Then, “Mr. Pruitt took the that the positions exercising those letter and, after changing just 37 oversight powers are filled by people – words in the 1,016-word draft, copied it like Attorney General Pruitt – who are onto his state government letterhead true believers in free market ideas and and sent it to Ms. [Lisa] Jackson, the 7 the power of innovation.” E.P.A. administrator.” The Devon Energy lobbyist, Bill Whitsett, later In his notes from one speech, Wyrick emailed Wyrick and Pruitt’s chief of wrote that “Pruitt’s time as AG came staff: “Outstanding! The timing of the in a time in history where we had an letter is great, given our meeting this administration [of President Obama] Friday with both E.P.A. and the White that was as aggressive as any in House… Please pass along Devon’s history in expanding federal power thanks to Attorney General Pruitt.” and aggregating power in 8 Washington.” In January 2013, the same Devon lobbyist emailed Wyrick, "I just let While Pruitt was attorney general, he General Pruitt know that BLM [Bureau took part in exchanges in which he of Land Management] is going to accepted campaign funds from oil, propose a different version of its coal, and gas special interests after federal lands hydraulic fracturing rule repeating verbatim the industry’s thanks to input received--thanks for talking points against EPA regulations.

WWW.AFJ.ORG PAGE 4 the help on this! We'll see the new here we are, with Wyrick rightfully still proposal sometime next week, I appointed — and a Justice of the believe, and we'll be back in touch on Oklahoma Supreme Court until and potential next steps." Weeks later, he unless something changes — sitting followed up in an email to Wyrick on a court which just issued an requesting a meeting and attaching a indefinite stay on the release of his “draft letter (or something like it that former boss’s [Scott Pruitt’s] emails. It Scott [Pruitt] is comfortable talking just looks bad.” from and sending to the acting director to whom the letter is II. Challenges to Environmental addressed)[.]” Then, he sent Wyrick Protections and other staff members instructions on how to submit the letter to the • In Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 693 regulatory bodies, as well as F.3d 169 (D.C. Cir. 2012), Wyrick information on federal procedures argued in an amicus brief on behalf and additional requests. Wyrick’s of Oklahoma that an EPA waiver deputy solicitor general responded, allowing an increased amount of “Thank you Bill, this helps! As you ethanol in certain fuels was know, in addition to the letter we are unlawful. The EPA argued that the trying to get a call with OMB setup," to waiver was a legal regulation under which the lobbyist replied, the Clean Air Act, which authorizes "Wonderful!" and asked for additional the EPA to “establish emission intel that Pruitt’s office could obtain. standards and fuel controls” for motor vehicles, including the power It is worth noting that Wyrick to waive a prohibition.10 Wyrick’s currently owns shares in Devon brief supported the petitioners – Energy Corporation, as listed in his trade associations concerned about financial disclosures.9 an increase in the price of corn – who asked the Supreme Court to Wyrick’s ties to Pruitt are made even overturn the D.C. Circuit’s ruling in more troubling by the Oklahoma favor of the EPA. The Supreme Supreme Court’s decision to deny Court declined, upholding the D.C. further release of Scott Pruitt’s emails Circuit decision that the trade during his nomination to head the associations lacked standing to EPA. Governor Mary Fallin named challenge the EPA’s policy. Wyrick to serve on the Oklahoma Supreme Court on February 9, 2017. • In EPA v. EME Homer City On February 28, the Oklahoma Generation, 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014) Supreme Court blocked a trial court’s (consolidated with American Lung order to have more of Pruitt’s emails Association v. EME Homer City released to the public. As one local Generation, No. 12-1183), Wyrick journalist observed after the stay of fought the EPA’s efforts to reduce the order to release the emails, “And pollution across state lines. Wyrick

WWW.AFJ.ORG PAGE 5

appeared on behalf of the state of replace state plan. Notably, Wyrick Oklahoma before the D.C. Circuit, accused the Sierra Club in his reply where he argued that the Court brief of “repeatedly should vacate the EPA’s “Transport misrepresent[ing] the record” to the Rule.” See EME Homer City Court.11 Despite this accusation, the Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 Supreme Court denied Wyrick’s (D.C. Cir. 2012). The EPA issued this petition. rule under the Clean Air Act to address the obligations of states • In Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699 upwind from pollution to reduce (2015) Wyrick again challenged the emissions. Several states and EPA’s authority pursuant to the private plaintiffs challenged the Clean Air Act, this time arguing that rule, arguing that the EPA’s the Act, which requires the EPA to method for computing obligations regulate power plants when exceeded its statutory authority. “appropriate and necessary,” was While the D.C. Circuit struck down unreasonably interpreted when the the regulation, the Supreme Court EPA didn’t consider cost in its ultimately reversed and upheld the regulation. Wyrick is on the petition EPA’s authority to create and for Supreme Court review as well as enforce a federal plan addressing three different briefs before the upwind polluters. Wyrick also Supreme Court. The Supreme appeared before the D.C. Circuit Court, in a 5-4 decision, agreed with after the Supreme Court remanded the states, and remanded the case the case, where he argued that the to the D.C. Circuit. Transport Rule, while constitutional, After the Supreme Court decided was invalid as applied to individual that the EPA must consider costs states, including Oklahoma. See before imposing regulations, the EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. D.C. Circuit on remand chose to EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015) keep in place prior EPA regulations imposed on power plants in order • In Oklahoma v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2662 (2014) (cert denied), Wyrick to “allow the agency to expeditiously cure the defect petitioned the Supreme Court to 12 overturn a Tenth Circuit ruling in identified” by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the states sued again, favor of the Clean Air Act. The EPA had created a policy to limit arguing that a reviewing court may not leave an unlawful rule in place. emissions of sulfur dioxide, replacing an Oklahoma state plan Wyrick sought to have the Clean Air Act regulations at issue – emissions with more stringent federal regulations. After Oklahoma standards over toxic air pollutants produced by power plants – struck challenged the stronger emissions standards, the Tenth Circuit found down. This time, Wyrick’s petition that the EPA had the authority to

WWW.AFJ.ORG PAGE 6

for Supreme Court review was Food and Drug Administration (FDA). denied. The law was struck down by the district court, which found that it • Finally, in FERC v. Elec. Power unconstitutionally limited women’s Supply Ass'n, 136 S. Ct. 760 (2016) access to emergency contraception. Wyrick filed an amicus brief on behalf of Oklahoma, arguing that Later, Wyrick opposed contraception the Federal Energy Regulatory access by filing an amicus brief in Commission (FERC) overstepped Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., federal authority by issuing a 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014). Wyrick is on the regulation that pays utility users to brief as counsel of record for the state reduce energy consumption at of Oklahoma, where he argued that peak power rates, known as the contraceptive mandate in the “demand response” pricing. The Affordable Care Act was Supreme Court, in an opinion by unconstitutional as applied to closely Justice , rejected held corporations. Oklahoma’s arguments that the Wyrick also advocated for limiting the regulation infringed on exclusive use of drugs for medication abortions. state authority, finding that the See Okla. Coalition for Reproductive federal government has authority Justice v. Cline, 368 P.3d 1278 (Okla. over electricity operations 2016). As solicitor general, Wyrick “affecting” wholesale marketing defended an Oklahoma law that and pricing. restricted the use of abortion- inducing drugs in years-long litigation, including petitioning the U.S. Reproductive Supreme Court. Critics of the law pointed out that “Forcing patients to undergo a more invasive surgical Rights abortion when a safer, more effective option is available ... is contrary to the As Solicitor General of Oklahoma, Wyrick practice of medicine.” Wyrick, in has fought reproductive rights for defense of the law, said, “Oklahoma's women, including supporting laws that Constitution does not include that limit access to contraception. right (to an abortion);” and "[n]o Wyrick defended an Oklahoma law, HB Oklahoma woman is being prevented 2226, that required minors to obtain a by this act from getting an prescription before purchasing Plan B. abortion….It places reasonable The law also placed an added requirements on how those abortions requirement on adult women, who are provided." While a district court would have had to show identification temporarily blocked parts of the bill to prove their age before buying Plan B from going into effect, the Oklahoma – something not required by the U.S. Supreme Court reversed.

WWW.AFJ.ORG PAGE 7

Wyrick also filed an amicus brief in Fallin, 316 P.3d 924 (Okla. 2013).13 In Humble v. Planned Parenthood Ariz., Inc., Coates, Wyrick fought an association 753 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2014) asking the of firefighters and legislators who Supreme Court to overturn a Ninth Circuit challenged Oklahoma’s sweeping decision striking down Arizona’s law that workers’ compensation reform law, limited access to drugs for medication S.B. 1062, the Administrative Workers abortions. The Ninth Circuit held that the Compensation Act. The Act – backed burden the law imposed on a woman’s by Republican Oklahoma Governor right to an abortion outweighed Arizona’s Mary Fallin – converted Oklahoma’s justification for the law. The Supreme court-based workers’ compensation Court denied the petition for review, system into an administrative dispute leaving the Ninth Circuit’s decision in resolution system. Among the bill’s place. other provisions was a controversial “Opt Out” clause that allowed In Pruitt v. Nova Health Sys., 571 U.S. 1010 employers out of the government-run (2013) (cert denied), Wyrick petitioned the system to reportedly “give employers Supreme Court to overturn the Oklahoma almost complete control over the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a medical and legal process after pre-abortion ultrasound requirement. The workers get injured;” a cap on Oklahoma Supreme Court found the law compensation for employees who unconstitutional under Planned suffer temporary disability while on Parenthood v. Casey, and the U.S. the job; a lowering of the cap on the Supreme Court denied Wyrick’s petition amount of time employees who suffer for certiorari. permanent disability on the job It is also notable that Wyrick is on receive compensation (from 520 President Trump’s short list for the weeks to 350 weeks); a provision that Supreme Court. President Trump has allowed employers to pick their made clear he has a litmus test for any employees’ doctor; and a provision potential Supreme Court nominee, that allowed employers to force their requiring that the person will employees into arbitration. “automatically” overturn Roe v. Wade. After the bill’s passing, critics claimed Wyrick’s record bears out Trump’s that the changes to the system confidence that he would pass this test. reportedly slashed workers’ benefits by roughly $120 million. Wyrick served as lead counsel to the state Workers’ defendants against allegations that the law “amounted to unconstitutional logrolling” by Rights combining multiple subjects into a single bill. The Oklahoma Supreme Wyrick includes among his “most Court accepted Wyrick’s argument significant litigated matters” Coates v.

WWW.AFJ.ORG PAGE 8 that the structure of the bill was Justice , writing for the constitutional. Court, pointed out, “the deferral provision fails to even remotely However, since the Act was originally advance this interest. As discussed upheld, it has been repeatedly above, [Theresa] Maxwell forfeited her challenged. See Vazquez v. Dillard’s, permanent partial disability benefits Inc., 381 P.3d 768 (Okla. 2016); by simply returning to work.” Id. at Robinson v. Fairview Fellowship Home 1091. Justice Gurich continued that for Senior Citizens, Inc., 371 P.3d 477 under the statutory deferral scheme, (Okla. 2016); Maxwell v. Sprint PCS, 369 “An injured employee who returns to P.3d 1079 (Okla. 2016). In Vasquez v. work receives no compensation for Dillard’s Inc., Wyrick defended the the physical injury sustained and no aforementioned “Opt Out” clause compensation for a reduction in before the Oklahoma Supreme Court. future earning capacity, upending the The court found that it was entire purpose of the workers' unconstitutional for the law to allow compensation system[.]” Id. at 1092-93. employers to opt out of the state’s compensation scheme, since it Accordingly, the Court found that “creates impermissible, unequal, deferring payments for permanent disparate treatment of a select group partial disability for workers who of injured workers[,]” and struck down eventually return to their jobs the provision. See Vasquez, 381 P.3d at unconstitutionally violated their due 770. process rights to fair compensation. In a partial concurrence, two justices In Maxwell v. Sprint PCS, workers agreed with striking down the challenged a provision of the law that relevant provision, but believed the deferred payments for a permanent court should have gone farther to partial disability (like the harm to or “cure the Legislature’s loss of “hands, fingers, arms, feet, toes, unconstitutional scheme [.]” Id. at 1095 and eyes”) in cases in which the (J. Colbert, concurring in part and worker can return to work. 369 P.3d at dissenting in part). 1084. The worker at issue in the case, Theresa Maxwell, suffered an injury to The Administrative Workers’ her knee on the job, and her workers’ Compensation Act continues to come compensation benefits were withheld under fire. Among the other sections after she returned to work, despite her the Oklahoma courts have excised are physical injury and potentially one provision that allowed employers reduced earning capacity. Wyrick to deny injured employees argued that the purpose of the compensation benefits if they had deferral provision was to ensure that missed doctor’s appointments, and employees who are disabled at work another that prohibited workers’ aren’t inappropriately compensated compensation claims from workers when they don’t return. However, as

WWW.AFJ.ORG PAGE 9 that have been employed less than Justice directly 180 days. criticized Wyrick from the bench, accusing the Oklahoma attorneys of After Wyrick joined the Oklahoma attempting to mislead the Court: Supreme Court, he dissented from a decision that awarded workers’ I am substantially disturbed that compensation benefits in Multiple in your brief you made factual Injury Trust Fund v. Garrett, 408 P.3d statements that were not 169, 176 (Okla. 2017) (Wyrick, J., supported by those sources [you dissenting).14 cited, and were] in fact directly contradicted. So nothing you say or read to me am I going to Death believe, frankly, until I see with my own eyes in the context, okay?15

Penalty Sotomayor said she found "many" examples of Wyrick’s team misleading Wyrick attracted controversy for the the court.16 Justice Kagan also had presentation of his defense of harsh words for the Oklahoma death Oklahoma’s death penalty protocol in penalty protocol, describing it as "like Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726 (2015). being burned alive[.]"17 The Glossip case was brought by death row inmates in Oklahoma who alleged that Oklahoma’s death row protocol was cruel and unusual. Tribal issues Oklahoma’s use of the drug midazolam during the botched Wyrick served as lead counsel and execution of Clayton Lockett brought negotiator for the Oklahoma Attorney the protocol under extreme scrutiny. General’s Office in a five-year dispute During the execution, Lockett over water rights with two of reportedly took over 40 minutes to die Oklahoma’s largest Indian tribes – the after receiving the lethal injection, and Chickasaw Nation and Choctaw 18 his last words were “I feel my whole Nation of Oklahoma. See Chickasaw body burning.” Nation & Choctaw Nation of Okla. v. Fallin, No. 5:11-cv-00927-W (W.D. Okla. Wyrick served as counsel of record for Aug. 18, 2011). The tribes sued in order the state of Oklahoma, and argued to block the granting of a water the case before the Supreme Court. permit by the state to While the Court eventually ruled in a that they alleged violated a historic 5-4 decision that the state’s protocol treaty between the tribes and the was constitutional, Oklahoma and its state. Oklahoma City sought to take attorneys, including Wyrick, came more water from lakes within the under fire from the Supreme Court. tribes’ territories, despite the tribes’

WWW.AFJ.ORG PAGE 10 authority over those waters. Among handguns if they hold a valid license the tribes’ concerns were that issued in another state. Oklahoma City would make excessive withdrawals from the tribes’ lakes to combat drought, a strategy that had Religious destroyed the local economy of a neighboring lake during a previous drought. Bigotry Wyrick and the government argued As solicitor general, Wyrick defended that the tribes had actually given up an amendment to the Oklahoma certain rights to the lakes years after Constitution that stated that the signing of the original treaty with Oklahoma courts “shall not consider Oklahoma. While the District Court for international law or Sharia Law” or the Western District of Oklahoma “look to the legal precepts of other originally heard the case, it ultimately nations or cultures.” See Awad v. went to mediation and was settled. Ziriax, 966 F. Supp. 2d 1198, 1200-01 Wyrick has also fought tribal (W.D. Okla. 2013). An Oklahoma district sovereignty in amicus briefs and court struck down the amendment, Supreme Court petitions on behalf of and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Id. at Oklahoma, including opposing tribal 1202. immunity from suits brought by states in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014) and Voting Rights Oklahoma v. Hobia, 136 S. Ct. 33 (2015); and arguing against tribal court Wyrick is on an amicus brief on behalf jurisdiction to adjudicate certain of Oklahoma in support of a Virginia claims against nonmembers in Dollar voting law that was struck down by Gen. Corp. v. Miss. Band of Choctaw the Fourth Circuit. See Libertarian Indians, 136 S. Ct. 2159 (2016). Party of Va. v. Judd, 718 F.3d 308 (4th Cir. 2013). For a third-party candidate to appear on a presidential ballot in Gun SAFETY Virginia, he or she must gather a minimum number of signatures from As solicitor general, Wyrick signed an voters. The Virginia law at issue Attorney General Opinion pertaining required that every ballot signature be to Oklahoma’s “permissive approach witnessed by a Virginia resident. The to recognition of [firearm] licenses Supreme Court declined to hear the from other states.” 19 The opinion case, and the law was struck down for claims that Oklahoma residents can violating the First Amendment. carry concealed or unconcealed

WWW.AFJ.ORG PAGE 11

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.

Endnotes 1 Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Patrick Robert Wyrick Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees, 1, available at https://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/ Patrick-Wyrick-Senate-Questionnaire-PUBLIC-OCR.pdf. 2 Patrick Wyrick, Panelist, “Standing for States and Environmental Harms,” George Mason University Law School, Recording at 28:15, available at https://vimeo. com/183526443 (Sept. 16, 2016). 3 Senate Judiciary Committee Executive Meeting, Recording at 49:40, available at https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/05/10/2018/executive-business-meeting (May 10, 2018). 4 Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Patrick Robert Wyrick Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees, 58. 5 Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Patrick Robert Wyrick Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees, 5. 6 Patrick Wyrick, The Supreme Court Decision that Every Startup Should Know About, MEDIUM (July 28, 2015) available at https://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/ Wyrick-Questionnaire-Attachments-p-2-5.pdf. 7 Id. 8 Patrick Wyrick, Speaker Notes, Oklahoma City Chapter of BYU Management Society Luncheon (May 18, 2017), available at https://www.afj.org/wp-content/ uploads/2018/05/Wyrick-Questionnaire-Attachments-p-76-79.pdf. 9 Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Patrick Robert Wyrick Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees, 62-63. 10 Brief for the Respondents at 2, Grocery Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 693 F.3d 169 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 11 Reply Brief of Petitioners at 9, Oklahoma v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2662 (2014). 12 Brief for the Respondents at I, Michigan v. EPA, 136 S. Ct. 2463 (2016) 13 Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., Patrick Robert Wyrick Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees, 50. 14 Id. at 17. 15 Oral Argument Transcript at 35, Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726 (2015), available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_ transcripts/2014/14-7955_1823.pdf. 16 Id. 17 Id. at 43. 18 Id. at 49. 19 Patrick Wyrick, Right to Carry a Handgun for Individuals Holding a License Issued by Another State, 2016 OK AG 3 (May 18, 2016) available at https://www.afj.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/05/Wyrick-Questionnaire-Attachments-p-21-25.pdf.