William G. Myers III Nomination Fact Sheet
March 5, 2004
A review of William G. Myers' record shows disregard and disrespect for the concerns of the Native American community, a troubling legal philosophy that would elevate property rights to a level of constitutional scrutiny reserved for fundamental rights, and a limited view of Congress' commerce power, which has implications for civil rights.
William Myers' record raises numerous serious concerns, including:
- Myers has shown an alarming insensitivity toward Native American heritage and traditions. His role as solicitor for the Department of the Interior, coupled with his pro-industry bias at the expense and interest of Native Americans, propelled the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the nation's oldest and largest organization of Native Americans and Alaskan tribal governments, to formally oppose Myers' nomination to the Ninth Circuit. NCAI's 2003 resolution cited Myers' "deep lack of respect and understanding of the unique political relationship between the federal government and tribal governments" as well as his "demonstrated [] inability to set aside personal bias to act in a neutral and objective manner."
- Myers has advocated a limited view of Congress' Commerce Clause power, a position that has far-reaching implications. In 2001's Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. Army Corps of Engineers, Myers authored an amicus brief where he advocated a very limited view of congressional power under the Commerce Clause. Diminishing congressional authority under the Commerce Clause is a primary goal of the so-called "states' rights" movement that seeks to limit the power of Congress to enact legislation that protects our civil and constitutional rights. Myers' argument in SWANCC could be used to strike down a broad range of federal laws protecting the health, safety, and civil rights of all Americans.
- Myers has argued for invalidation of environmental and governmental regulations. He also has argued for elevated protection for private property "rights," as a way to invalidate environmental and governmental regulations. In 1995's Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities of Oregon, Myers filed an amicus brief arguing that a regulation promulgated under the Endangered Species Act was unconstitutional because it violated cattle ranchers' property rights. In support of this argument, Myers claimed that the property "rights" of a rancher were "as fundamental as his right to freedom of speech or freedom from unreasonable search and seizure." This elevation of property rights to the level of "fundamental" rights could be used to invalidate a wide range of important health, safety, and environmental, or civil rights, regulations.
- Myers' nomination is of particular concern, given the circuit to which he has been appointed. The Ninth Circuit presides over one hundred Indian tribes, millions of Indian people, millions of acres of public land, and has jurisdiction over important federal and tribal lands management issues.
For many Americans, the federal judiciary is the first line of defense against violations of dearly held constitutional principles. Because of the impact that lifetime appointments of judges hostile to civil rights may have on the rights of millions of Americans, LCCR/LCCREF will continue to monitor the integrity of the processes for nominating and confirming judicial appointments.
