The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Division of Oral Arguments in the Office of Solicitor General (OT 2001-OT 2023)
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) presents oral arguments on behalf of the federal government in almost all cases before the Supreme Court. There are a few outliers. The Attorney General on occasion has argued one case during his or her tenure. And in rare cases, an attorney from an agency like the Federal Trade Commission will argue before the Court.
The Solicitor General (SG), who is Senate-confirmed, leads the Office. When the SG position is vacant, there will be an Acting SG. Below the SG is the Principal Deputy SG (PDSG), also known as the "political" deputy. Traditionally, OSG has traditionally had four Deputy Solicitor Generals (DSGs), including the PDSG. Currently there are five total deputies. The rest of the office includes Assistants to the Solicitor General (ASGs).
During the October Term 2023 (OT 2023), OSG argued a total of 53 cases. SG Elizabeth Prelogar argued ten cases and PDSG Brian Fletcher argued three cases. Four DSGs argued cases: Malcolm Stewart (3), Edwin Kneedler (2), Eric Feigin (2), and Curtis Gannon (2). The remaining 31 OSG cases were argued by the 15 ASGs.
How does this division of oral arguments compare to past terms? Since OT 2001, OSG has argued nearly 1,300 cases. I compiled this total by cross-referencing arguments in Oyez and in the WestLaw Supreme Court Oral Argument database. Even as the size of the Court's merits docket has shrunk, OSG continues to argue roughly the same number of cases. The high was 63 cases in OT 2001 and the low was 47 cases in OT 2017, averaging to about 55 per term. Still, because this number fluctuates year-by-year, it is more useful to measure percentages: what percentages of the OSG cases are argued by the SG, the PDSG, DSGs, and ASGs.
This table breaks down the percentages:
Term | SG | SG | PDSG | DSGs | ASGs |
OT 01 | Olson | 12.70% | 7.94% | 15.87% | 63.49% |
OT 02 | Olson | 15.25% | 8.47% | 15.25% | 61.02% |
OT 03 | Olson | 15.00% | 11.67% | 18.33% | 55.00% |
OT 04 | Clement (Acting) | 16.00% | 5.08% | 20.00% | 64.00% |
OT 05 | Clement | 13.56% | 0 | 20.34% | 61.02% |
OT 06 | Clement | 15.38% | 5.77% | 21.15% | 57.69% |
OT 07 | Clement | 12.73% | 9.09% | 20.00% | 58.18% |
OT 08 | Garre | 8.77% | 3.51% | 22.81% | 63.16% |
OT 09 | Kagan | 9.26% | 9.26% | 22.22% | 59.26% |
OT 10 | Katyal (Acting) | 10.53% | 7.02% | 21.05% | 61.40% |
OT 11 | Verrilli | 14.04% | 5.26% | 19.30% | 61.40% |
OT 12 | Verrilli | 10.94% | 7.81% | 18.75% | 62.50% |
OT 13 | Verrilli | 12.50% | 7.14% | 19.64% | 60.71% |
OT 14 | Verrilli | 12.28% | 5.26% | 17.54% | 64.91% |
OT 15 | Verrilli | 10.34% | 5.17% | 17.24% | 67.24% |
OT 16 | Gershengorn (Acting) | 6.00% | 4.00% | 18.00% | 72.00% |
OT 17 | Francisco | 8.51% | 10.64% | 19.15% | 61.70% |
OT 18 | Francisco | 9.62% | 9.62% | 15.38% | 65.38% |
OT 19 | Francisco | 14.00% | 12.00% | 20.00% | 54.00% |
OT 20 | Wall (Acting) | 10.00% | 6.00% | 22.00% | 62.00% |
OT 21 | Prelogar (Acting) | 9.62% | 5.77% | 23.08% | 59.62% |
OT 22 | Prelogar | 15.38% | 5.77% | 25.00% | 53.85% |
OT 23 | Prelogar | 18.87% | 5.66% | 16.98% | 58.49% |
In OT 2023, SG Prelogar argued 18.87% of OSG cases, the highest percentage in at least a quarter century. Indeed, Prelogar's 10 arguments in OT 2023 was the highest raw total since SG Olson argued 9 cases in OT 2002 and OT 2003. But in those two terms, OSG had 59 and 60 total arguments, respectively. Olson's totals were 15.25% and 15%, respectively. By contrast, in OT 2023, OSG had only 53 arguments.
If Prelogar had so many arguments, who was left out? PDSG Brian Fletcher argued three cases, only 5.6% of the OSG cases. If we exclude terms in which there was no confirmed SG, and the Principal Deputy SG served as Acting SG, Fletcher's total is among the lowest in a quarter century. Moreover, the other four Deputy SGs argued 16.98% of the cases.
Again, historically there were three deputies other than the principal, but during the Trump administration, that number was increased to four. In a quarter century, this was the first term in which the SG argued a higher percentage of cases than all of the Deputy SGs combined. To state the point plainly, SG Prelogar single-handedly argued more cases than DSGs Stewart, Kneedler, Feigin, and Gannon, combined. If we exclude Prelogar's tenure, DSGs argued about 7% more cases than the SG. But during OT 2023, the SG out-argued the DSGs.
This graph distills how SG Prelogar argued more cases than her predecessors, how the Deputy SGs under SG Prelogar argued fewer cases than their predecessors, and how the Principal Deputy SG is near the bottom of utilization rates when there is a confirmed SG.
There's more. During OT 2023, Assistant SGs argued 58.49% of the OSG cases: fourteen ASGs each argued two cases, and ASG Charles Luke McCloud argued only one case. That is one of the lowest totals in a quarter century. The lowest total for ASG arguments came in OT 2022, where ASGs argued 53.85% of the cases. Even as SG Prelogar argues more cases, the Assistant SGs are arguing fewer cases. During SG Francisco's term, many ASG's had 3 arguments in a term. During OT 2022, only one ASG had 3 arguments. During OT 2023, zero ASGs had 3 arguments.
During OT 2023, Prelogar argued these ten cases:
October Sitting:
November Sitting:
- United States v. Rahimi (2023)
- Moore v. United States (2023)
January Sitting:
February Sitting:
- Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (2023)
- NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton (2023)
March Sitting:
April Sitting:
- Moyle v. United States (2023)
- Fischer v. United States (2023)
It could be argued that pairs of cases should only be counted as one. And you could pair Relentless and Loper Bright, and the two NetChoice cases. But all of my counts are premised on the actual number of arguments. I did not consider whether two cases were related. Olson, Clement, and the rest all had the opportunities to argue paired cases. In private practice, a lawyer who argues companion cases still gets two arguments to her credit. Presumably the SG will not count two cases that she argued just as just one in the future. If SG Prelogar decided to argue both Chevron cases and both NetChoice cases, to preserve parity, she could have dropped one or two of the cases from the March and April sittings. Any of her deputies could have argued AFHM, Moyle, or Fischer.
Lawyers in OSG are routinely headhunted to join private practice. One of the key incentives to work for a government salary is presenting arguments before the Supreme Court. If those arguments are not evenly doled out, it stands to reason that recruiting, morale, and retention will suffer.
Update (6/18/24 at 1:51 PM): I've found one error in my numbers. During OT 2011, Solicitor General Verrilli argued nine cases, rather than eight. Verrilli did not argue any cases during the February sittting. In the March sitting, for the Affordable Care Act litigation, Verrilli argued three cases in the span of three days. (Deputy Ed Kneedler had the fourth argument on severability.) Two of Verrilli's argued cases were titled HHS v. Florida, and I inadvertently counted them as a single case. They should have been counted separately. Mea culpa. With nine arguments, Verrilli had about 16% of the argued cases that term. That number is still less than SG Prelogar's ten cases, which were nearly 19% of the cases argued during OT 2023. I fully expect to spot other errors in the numbers, and welcome any corrections.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Any thoughts on why the SG is keeping more cases for herself? I'm curious if the govt noticed that the SG has frequently obtained a favorable outcome (if she has; I haven't reviewed the dispositions of her argued cases) and decided to have her present oral arguments more often as a result.
Prelogar is really really good. (Not that any were bad, but Prelogar stands out.) Best since Clement, at least.
What makes her really, really good?
She is facing a bench that requires swinging at least 2 justices just to eke out a majority. Despite that, she has prevailed on cases like AFHM with Justice Alito not even writing a concurrence. She is a gifted oral advocate who does a great job representing the administration's position while still framing it in a way that can plausibly win over swing votes.
Might want to check your dates and/or math. Should be “Since OT 2001”?
I had noticed the thing Prof. Blackman is pointing out. Prelogar seems to want to put her stamp on all the "big" cases. For example, she argued in Students for Fair Admission. Why? The Court obviously wasn't going to care what the Biden administration thought on the merits, and the US wasn't even a party to the case. At most, the federal interest was basically a footnote-- preserving the military affirmative action cases for another day. So why was she there?
Answer-- I think she sees the Democratic Party "groups" as her constituents and wants to be seen fighting for their causes at SCOTUS.
At any rate, TBC, she's a fine lawyer and can handle the workload. Still, she's clearly arguing cases she doesn't really need to argue.
"Lawyers in OSG are routinely headhunted to join private practice. One of the key incentives to work for a government salary is presenting arguments before the Supreme Court. If those arguments are not evenly doled out, it stands to reason that recruiting, morale, and retention will suffer."
I don't know about this. The reason OSG lawyers are headhunted is that those OSG positions are extremely competitive, so OSG lawyers tend to be the cream of the crop. The fact that the OSG lawyers have actual experience in front of the SCT is secondary at best. I'd think that as long as you get at least one shot to argue in front of the SCT, that will tick off the relevant box on your resume.
It is like law school recruiting. Big firms are going to go much harder for Stanford students than, say, South Texas students. And they'll go even harder for those with law review experience. That has nothing to do with the students' experience with nuts and bolts of screening and editing articles, and everything to do with the fact that making law review indicates strong academic performance in comparison with ones fellow students.
I guess Josh is angry that General Prelogar won a big victory in AFHM and will likely score wins in Moyle and Fischer. She is a gifted advocate and it is not surprising that the administration wants her out there as much as possible.
"General Prelogar"
Ugh. She is not a "General"! Its an adjective describing her role. Same for Attorney General.
I know SCOTUS makes this error too. Al the more reason not to give in to it.
State government litigants choosing their judge is fine.
But Federal government litigants choosing their lawyer is a scandal.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
She's 2-0 so far this term. She argued most of the "big" cases. Maybe she's angling for a future appointment to the SCOTUS. But I can also imagine that the Biden administration wants her to argue the big cases because she's talented and persuasive.
She argued several cases before becoming SG as well:
https://www.oyez.org/advocates/elizabeth_b_prelogar
"Any of her deputies could have argued AFHM, Moyle, or Fischer."
I think the importance of these cases made it logical that she felt it important to take these cases. These cases involve abortion rights & January 6th prosecutions. The best advocate, and she is very good, would be a logical choice.
I can see if she was dominating minor cases. I'm not sure if that is the case. It also has been reported that the Roberts Court has recently taken a heavier "more important case" caseload.
"Stewart, Kneedler, Feigin, and Gannon"
Kneedler was there forever. The OP suggests that Brian Fletcher is losing out. The Oyez page shows he argued important cases:
Garland v. Cargill (2023)
Murthy v. Missouri (2023)
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy (2023)
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2022)
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022)
He also argued Bruen. How much really is he missing out really?
https://www.oyez.org/advocates/brian_h_fletcher
Honestly you don't want the SG to dominate the "major" cases either, if you are defining them by political salience.
You actually want the SG to argue the cases of most importance to the United States government even if they are not politically salient, and to not argue politically salient cases of less importance to the interests of the government. There's an undercurrent of politicization of DOJ (a long term, bipartisan trend) in this.
It "stands to reason" that a minor decrease in the number of cases Deputy SG's argue (at this point from 3 to 2) will make them less attractive to private firms and that "recruiting, morale, and retention will suffer"?
"Reason" doesn't suggest that to me, and we will soon enough have an empirical basis to check on JB's speculation.
The inside baseball-ist of inside baseball.