Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refused to commit to withdrawing from ongoing lawsuits against the EPA that he himself helped file as Oklahoma Attorney General.
Scott Pruitt said Wednesday he would decide to withdraw from agency matters, only after consulting EPA ethics officials. Pruitt also recognized that the added layer of bureaucracy was unnecessary, when deciding that conflicts of interest require his withdrawal from agency matters.
“Clearly, there is discretion to recuse,” he told Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), during his confirmation hearing before the Senate energy committee.
As noted by Sens. Kamala and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Pruitt has been involved as a plaintiff in numerous lawsuits against the EPA regulations, in his official capacity, as Attorney General of Oklahoma.
“Eight of those cases are still ongoing,” Markey said, noting the litigation involves challenges on rules limiting “smog, mercury and carbon pollution.”
Markey also noted that Pruitt, if confirmed, would have the power to alter or annul those regulations.
“To create an appearance of independence, it’s critical you recuse yourself,” Markey added. “Otherwise, honestly, people are not just gonna think it’s the fox guarding the henhouse. It’s the fox destroying the henhouse.”
Pruitt has only committed thus far to recusing himself from matters he had been involved in for one year after his appointment. As Markey noted, the ongoing litigation that Pruitt had helped bring against EPA could still be ongoing, well into 2018 and beyond.
If Pruitt does deliberate on cases that he himself helped bring to the EPA, any resulting agency decision could get scrapped by a Judge.
Last summer, the Supreme Court ruled that Ronald Castile, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice, violated due process rights by ruling on the appeal of a man set to be executed.
The high court threw out the death sentence of Terrence Williams, ruling 5-3, that Castile should have recused himself from the case. Castile had previously signed off on the pursuit of capital punishment for Williams, as Philadelphia district attorney.
“A constitutionally intolerable probability of bias exists when the same person serves as both accuser and adjudicator in a case,” the majority noted.
