Tribe Opposes Appeals Court Nominee

A California Indian tribe has accused a controversial nominee for the federal appeals court in San Francisco of lying during his confirmation hearing.

The latest charge comes on the eve of a vote today in the Senate Judiciary Committee on the nomination of William G. Myers III to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

An attorney for the Quechan Indian Nation sent a letter to members of the Judiciary Committee this week saying that Myers had told “untruths” in his March 1 testimony in response to questions from the committee about actions he had taken while he was the Interior Department’s top lawyer.

“Mr. Myers continues to try to rewrite history” regarding his actions on the proposed Glamis mine in Imperial County, the letter from attorney Courtney Ann Coyle of La Jolla states.

John Nowacki, a spokesman for the Justice Department, who has served as Myers’ spokesman during a lengthy confirmation battle, said the letter mischaracterized what had occurred and said Myers had been cleared of any wrongdoing in the Glamis matter by the Interior Department’s inspector general.

In 2001, Meyers reversed a legal opinion by his predecessor at Interior, paving the way for Glamis Gold Ltd. of Canada to move forward with plans to build a 1,600 acre open-pit gold mine that would be adjacent to federally designated wilderness in Imperial County.

The mine has not been built and Glamis has filed a legal claim against the state of California, saying environmental restrictions have destroyed the value of the proposed mine.

Last year, the nomination of Myers to the 9th Circuit cleared the judiciary committee on a straight party line vote, but failed before the full Senate on a 53 to 44 vote.

Myers is among 10 judicial candidates whose nominations were blocked by Senate Democrats and were renominated in February by President Bush. Myers will be the first since then to be voted on by the committee, and if he clears the panel as expected, it could set up a confrontation on the Senate floor.

Myers, 49, practices law in Boise, Idaho. He was a lobbyist for the mining and grazing industries before serving as solicitor of the Interior Department during the first two years of the Bush administration.

Myers’ predecessor at Interior during the Clinton administration, John Leshy, said the Glamis project had to be stopped to prevent “unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands.”

An independent federal agency found that if the mine were built, “the Quechan tribe’s ability to practice their sacred traditions as a living part of their community would be lost.”

Glamis sued the Interior Department, challenging Leshy’s opinion. When Myers met with Glamis officials the suit was still pending. After his opinion opened the door for the project to go forward, the company dismissed its lawsuit.

The Quechan tribe expressed outrage that Myers made the decision without consulting them, particularly given that the court had granted the tribe a formal role in the case. Quechan officials called his opinion “an affront to all American Indians.” The tribe has opposed his nomination.

The National Congress of American Indians, the nation’s largest tribal organization, also has come out against Myers -- the first time the group has ever opposed a nominee for a federal court -- saying he has manifested a “blatant disregard for the government-to-government consultation process” the Interior Department is supposed to engage in with tribes.

At the March 1 hearing, Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.) asked Myers about a response he had given earlier to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), saying that he did not meet with tribal leaders involved in the Glamis Mine because of the Sept. 11 tragedy. “Yet,” Feingold said, “you met with mining officials from the company who wanted to develop the mine on Sept. 13, 2001.”

In response, Myers said that the invitation he received from the tribe “was to travel to California. I believe I’m correct in stating that planes were all grounded at the time, and they could not have traveled here to meet with me, and I could not have traveled there to meet with them. Had they wished to meet with me in my office as the mining company did, I would have welcomed them into my office.”

In her letter to the Judiciary Committee, Coyle said Myers description of what had happened was incorrect “and patently offensive.”

Coyle said that the tribe had asked Myers to meet with them before taking any actions that might affect tribal interests, proposing a meeting at the reservation and a tour of the site to help his review.

Myers testified on March 1 that after he submitted his decision he met with members of the tribe, who again described their concerns.

“Myers’ use of the [Sept. 11] tragedy is especially egregious because he was able to meet with Glamis and its counsel on Sept. 13, a mere two days after the terror attacks,” the letter says.

A few months after Myers’ issued his legal opinion, a federal judge in Washington found that Myers had incorrectly interpreted federal law, which obliged the Interior Department “to disapprove” mines that “would unduly harm or degrade the public land.”