Patrick James Morrisey (born December 21, 1967) is an American politician and attorney serving since 2025 as the 37th governor of West Virginia. A member of the Republican Party, he served from 2013 to 2025 as the 34th attorney general of West Virginia.
Raised in Edison, New Jersey, Morrisey earned bachelor's and law degrees from Rutgers University. After working as an attorney and lobbyist in New Jersey and Washington, D.C., he was elected West Virginia attorney general in 2012, becoming the first Republican to hold the office since 1933. Morrisey was the Republican nominee in the 2018 United States Senate election in West Virginia, narrowly losing to incumbent Senator Joe Manchin. He was elected governor in 2024, defeating Democratic nominee Stephen T. Williams.
Early life and education Born in the New York City borough of Brooklyn, Morrisey grew up in Edison, New Jersey. His father was an account manager at U.S. Steel, while his mother worked as a registered nurse. Morrisey ran cross-country and played on his high school's tennis team, before he graduated from the St. Thomas Aquinas High School / Bishop George Ahr High School in 1985.Staff. "D.C. Law Firm Names Morrisey as Partner", The Westfield Leader and The Scotch Plains – Fanwood Times, March 11, 2004. Accessed July 4, 2018. "The former Westfield resident grew up in Edison, where he graduated from Bishop Ahr/St. Thomas Aquinas High School."
In 1989, Morrisey graduated with honors from Rutgers University with a Bachelor of Arts in history and political science. He also graduated from Rutgers School of Law–Newark, receiving his juris doctor in 1992.
Law practice and lobbying career Morrisey was active in Republican politics in New Jersey early in life; he worked on George H. W. Bush's presidential campaign in 1988 and Cary Edwards' gubernatorial campaign in 1989, and was press secretary of Christine Todd Whitman's U.S. Senate campaign in 1990.
After graduating from Rutgers, Morrisey lived in Westfield, New Jersey, and opened a private law firm in 1992. From 1995 to 1999, he practiced health care, election, regulatory and communications law at Arent Fox, a national white shoe law and lobbying firm.
From 1999 to 2004, Morrisey served as deputy staff director and chief health counsel for the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce, where he worked on the passage of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness Response Act and the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (establishing Medicare Part D). In 2000, he ran for the United States House of Representatives in New Jersey's 7th congressional district, receiving 9% of the vote in the Republican primary. Morrisey opposed abortion with exceptions and faced fierce opposition from anti-abortion leaders and groups in the district.
From 2004 to 2012, Morrisey worked as a lawyer in Washington, D.C. He moved to Jefferson County, West Virginia, in 2006. He was a partner at the corporate law firm Sidley Austin before joining King & Spalding, where he became a partner.
As a lobbyist, Morrisey was viewed as an expert on health and drug-related regulations and legislation. He was paid $250,000 to lobby on behalf of a pharmaceutical trade group funded by some of the same opioid distributors West Virginia sued for flooding the state with opioids.
Attorney General of West Virginia (2013–2025)
In 2012, Morrisey ran for Attorney General of West Virginia against Darrell McGraw, a five-term incumbent. He defeated McGraw and was sworn in on January 14, 2013, making him West Virginia's first Republican state attorney general since 1933.
Federal lawsuits
DEA opioid lawsuit Morrisey sued the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to release its data on opioid sales and the sales quota system it uses to regulate opioid manufacturers, the first such lawsuit in West Virginia history. He placed a hold on the lawsuit after successfully negotiating with the Trump administration to have the DEA reconsider whether to amend the aggregate quota system.
American Farm Bureau v. EPA. On September 13, 2013, in American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania held that the EPA had the authority under the Clean Water Act to impose a total maximum daily load standard for pollutants and that the established procedures were consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act."American Farm Bureau v. EPA Decision", U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Pennsylvania. September 13, 2013. Accessed August 16, 2014. This is contrary to the argument by Morrisey's amicus brief, which said that the "EPA's overreach in the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TDML) infringes states' traditional rights the Clean Water Act intended to protect.""American Farm Bureau v. EPA Brief of the States" , Kansas et al. February 3, 2014. Accessed August 16, 2014.
Mingo Logan Coal v. EPA. On March 24, 2014, in Mingo Logan Coal Company v. EPA, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the petition for writ of certiorari."March 24, 2014 Order List", US Supreme Court. March 24, 2014. Accessed August 16, 2014. The Court rejected the argument in Morrisey's brief that the "EPA unlawfully vetoed permits issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.""Mingo Logan Coal Company v. EPA Brief of the States" , West Virginia et al. December 16, 2013. Accessed August 16, 2014.
White Stallion v. EPA. On April 15, 2014, in White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) rule regulation of emissions from coal-fired electric generating units was appropriate and necessary and that the EPA acted within its legal authority and demonstrated a reasonable connection between its action and the record of decision."White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA Decision" , U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. April 15, 2014. Accessed August 16, 2014. The Court rejected the argument in Morrisey's brief that the "EPA rule usurped the states' authority by setting minimum substantive requirements for state performance standards."
Homer City v. EPA. On April 29, 2014, in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, the U.S. Supreme Court held the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule was a cost-effective allocation of emission reductions among upwind States and is a permissible, workable, and equitable interpretation of the Good Neighbor Provision."EPA v. EME Homer City Generation Decision", U.S. Supreme Court. April 29, 2014. Accessed August 16, 2014. The Court rejected the argument in Morrisey's brief that the "EPA exceeded its authority under the federal Clean Air Act when it promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule"., West Virginia et al. November 7, 2013. Accessed August 17, 2014.
Utility Air v. EPA. On June 23, 2014, in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the EPA reasonably interpreted the Act to require sources that would need permits based on their emission of conventional pollutants to comply with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for greenhouse gases and that EPA's decision to require BACT for greenhouse gases emitted by sources otherwise subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review is, as a general matter, a permissible interpretation of the statute."Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA Decision", U.S. Supreme Court. June 23, 2014. Accessed August 16, 2014. The Court rejected the argument in Morrisey's brief that the "EPA violated the U.S. Constitution and the Clean Air Act by concocting greenhouse gas regulations" and that the court must "rein in a usurpatious agency and remind the President and his subordinates that they cannot rule by executive decree.""Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA Brief of the States", Kansas et al. December 16, 2013. Accessed August 16, 2014."U.S. SC to hear challenge to EPA's greenhouse gas regulations", West Virginia Record. October 16, 2013. Accessed August 17, 2014.
Murray Energy v. EPA. On June 25, 2014, Morrisey and other attorneys general submitted an amicus brief"Murray Energy v. EPA Brief of the States" , West Virginia et al. June 25, 2014. Accessed August 21, 2014. in Murray Energy v. EPA before the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit."Murray Energy files lawsuit against EPA to prohibit coal-fired power plant regulations" , Murray Energy v. EPA. June 18, 2014. Accessed August 21, 2014. This lawsuit was prematurely filed before EPA had issued the final standards, which were not due until June 1, 2015."Section 111 of the CAA: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Power Plants", Environmental Protection Agency. February 20, 2014. Accessed August 21, 2014. The D.C. Circuit had ruled on this issue in December 2012 in Las Brisas Energy Center v. EPA. The court dismissed the case with a single short sentence: "The challenged proposed rule is not final agency action subject to judicial review.""Las Brisas Energy Center v. EPA" , U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. December 13, 2012. Accessed August 21, 2014.
National Mining v. EPA. On July 11, 2014, in National Mining Association vs EPA, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the EPA and the U.S. Corps of Engineers had the statutory authority under the Clean Water Act to enact a procedure rule (Enhanced Coordination Process memorandum) to review mountaintop mining permits."National Mining Association vs EPA Decision" , U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. July 11, 2014. Accessed August 16, 2014. The Court rejected the argument in Morrisey's brief that the "EPA was attempting to take for itself responsibilities reserved to the states and other federal agencies.""West Virginia must win its fight against overreach", West Virginia Record. August 23, 2013. Accessed August 16, 2014.
West Virginia et al. v. EPA. On July 31, 2014, Morrisey and attorneys general from other states filed a lawsuit, West Virginia et al. v. EPA,"West Virginia et al v. EPA" , West Virginia et al. July 31, 2014. Accessed August 21, 2014."WV Attorney General Patrick Morrisey files new lawsuit" , West Virginia State Journal. August 1, 2014. Accessed August 21, 2014. in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging a court-ordered"New York et al. v. EPA", United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. September 24, 2007. Accessed August 21, 2014. settlement on March 2, 2011, between the EPA and 11 states—New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Massachusetts—and the District of Columbia."Settlement Agreement" , New York et al and EPA. March 2, 1011. Accessed August 21, 2014. In the settlement, EPA promised to issue its now-pending rule establishing standards of performance for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (EGUs). A settlement was reached based on guidance from the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, which held that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The attorneys general's lawsuit was over three years late. The EPA published the proposed settlement in December 2010, and Section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act allows a 30-day period to challenge any requirements of the Clean Air Act."Clean Air Act. Title I. Air Pollution Prevention and Control.", Environmental Protection Agency. February 24, 2004. Accessed August 21, 2014.