One of President Trump’s new crop of tremendous nominees to the federal courts is Zach West for the Northern District of Oklahoma. West and I started on the Judiciary Committee together — Zach as counsel for Ted Cruz and I as counsel for Jeff Flake — so I’ve known and respected Zach for over a decade. I later sponsored his membership in the Supreme Court Bar along with the great Kellie Fiedorek of Alliance Defending Freedom. He’s a great pick and a great guy.
As I’ve explained before, Oklahoma’s courts are in trouble. In the wake of the McGirt opinion on tribal jurisdiction, they have been inundated with criminal cases and rely on visiting judges from across the country — from Cleveland to San Juan. That it has had vacancies outstanding so long is puzzling, but better late than never, and better still an excellent nominee such as West.
West is currently the head of special litigation for the Oklahoma attorney general. Informed observers may scratch their heads at that. “Isn’t the Oklahoma attorney general the guy,” they might ask, “who successfully enforced Oklahoma’s odious and bigoted Blaine Amendment, thereby shutting down the country’s first Catholic charter school? Like, wasn’t his name in the caption?” Indeed he is.
“Why in the world would someone from that office get nominated in the Trump administration?” Because he’s really good, that’s why. Perhaps more importantly, he also had nothing to do with that case. The briefing in Drummond was signed by the state solicitor general — not West — and the counsel of record was from the global megafirm, Latham & Watkins.
In fact, West was recused from the case because he authored and signed the opinion authorizing Catholic charter schools. That was under the prior attorney general, John O’Connor, for whom West served as solicitor general, and before the current attorney general flipped the office’s position on the case. West’s well-reasoned opinion is just the sort of thing we should want from a judge.
West’s qualifications are excellent. He was in the Order of the Coif at the University of Oklahoma and went on to clerk for the great Leon Holmes in Arkansas and Bobby Baldock on the Tenth Circuit. He then spent a couple of years on the Judiciary Committee gaining critical insights into legislation and politics before returning home to Oklahoma, where he has served with distinction defending some of his state’s most sensitive policies in state and federal court.
When I worked on judicial nominations in the last Trump administration, we always had problems with Oklahoma. The local lawyers are experts at dealing with the American Bar Association and constantly sniping at each other with success. The Oklahoma nominees in the 115th Congress topped out at “qualified,” and three-quarters of them got full or partial “not qualified” ratings. It was bad enough that when I was at the Department of Justice I told the ABA Standing Committee on the Judiciary (in person) that it needed to get its act together in Oklahoma.
I can’t prove it, but I suspect a big part of this problem is that Oklahoma has long been a “judicial hellhole,” or a state where plaintiff lawyers go to win. A sterling nominee like Patrick Wyrick or Zach West, who’s competent to resolve unmeritorious cases on the papers, is unlikely to give the opportunity for a “nuclear” jury verdict that wets the whistle of the local bar and political establishment.
Whatever the reason for the problems, the ABA seemed to take the admonition to heart and presented far fewer Oklahoma issues in the 116th Congress. Let’s hope that continues here.
West is an excellent pick for a court that needs an excellent pick. Senators Lankford and Armstrong are to be commended for supporting him.