The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Solicitor General Briefs Now Include An "Introduction" Section
One of the few pieces of new information in the New York Times article raising "concerns" about the SG's Office.
On the Monday after Thanksgiving, the New York Times published a lengthy article about turnover and partisanship in the Solicitor General's Office. Yet, there is very little new information. In April, the Washington Post reported on departures from OSG after Trump took office, and that there were now two principal deputies. The Times adds that the Office brought on several new assistants who (gasp!) clerked for Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett. But in the end, there is not even a hint that there is dissension within the office.
So far, people familiar with the office said the turnover had not affected morale; Mr. Kneedler and other recently departed attorneys returned for a recent happy hour with their former colleagues.
In 2024, I wrote about how there was some dissatisfaction with how Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar was taking more than her fair share of oral arguments. There were also departures. But Prelogar was praised with glamor shots.
So what do we learn from the Times? Michael Luttig is unhappy with his two former clerks, John Sauer and Hash Mooppan. Should we be surprised?
I think the biggest takeaway here is that a conservative Solicitor General is managing an office geared to a conservative Supreme Court, and he is strategically picking and choosing the cases that will lead to victories. Lisa Blatt's quote is on point:
Even critics of the president admit the office has an impressive record.
"It's like an 18-wheeler truck," said Lisa Blatt, a veteran of the Supreme Court bar and a partner at Williams & Connolly who has been critical of President Trump. "They're crushing it."
There was one useful piece of new information: introductions.
For years, it has bothered me that SG briefs lacked an introduction. Whenever I pick up a Supreme Court brief, I will immediately skim the intro to get a sense of what the argument is. If I am in a real hurry, I will scan the Table of Contents, as a good outline provide a short roadmap of the arguments. But the SG briefs never had introductions or descriptive table of contents. At some point this year, the practice changed. The New York Times has details:
For the first time in modern memory, the office's merits briefs, the legal filings it makes before the justices hear a case, begin with an "introduction," a section often filled with unusually charged language, including direct quotes from Mr. Trump. . . .
The new "introduction" section of briefs has been another point of contention. Government filings have typically begun with the legal argument, but now they open with a summary, often using punchy language. Ms. Baldassarre, the Justice Department spokeswoman, said the introductions offer a preview of the government's argument for the justices and make it more accessible for a general audience.
I, for one, welcome this change.
Now if the SG would only stop using Courier font for emergency applications. It is ghastly.
Update: A colleague reminded me that Sauer hired Aaron Roper as an Assistant SG. Aaron clerked for Judge Merrick Garland, and he was a Bristow Fellow. I suppose this sentence is accurate:
To replace departing lawyers, Mr. Sauer hired at least six new frontline attorneys. They broadly share the stellar credentials of their predecessors and include former law clerks to Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett M. Kavanaugh.
But Roper's hiring really doesn't advance the narrative.
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
SG has stopped using Courier on stay applications for almost a year. (see e.g. McHenry v. Texas Top Cop Shop)
I, for one, welcome this change.
Gee, who could have seen that coming?
NYT? WaPo?
No one cares.
"They're crushing it."
This can be read a number of ways.
Just like laws and the Constitution. You lawyers ought to be drooling with ecstasy.
No one works like you think they do. Not even you.
Dunno what got you so weirded up, but it's all you.
The winning record has nothing to do with the skill of the SG, but everything to do with the partisanship of SCOTUS. The SG could submit a photocopy of a dead cat and still have the same winning record.
and so long as Dem "judges" continue to ignore the law and Constitution, that's the way it should be
Tucker Act means that no, you can't sue in District Court over the Feds cancelling the contract you were getting paid under. Not that any Dem cares abotu that
So how about you FOAD?
I nearly always do an introduction. They're a great way to lay out your case at the very start. Bryan Gardner (not sure I spelled his name correctly) highly recommends them.
I've put an introduction into every single appellate writ and appeal I've ever done (all to the local state appeals court in the LA area). County Counsel (ie, the prosecutor) almost always includes an Intro, but not always, so I don't know if that office has any official policy, or, if it's strictly up to the individual attorney writing that particular document.
I'm in the rare situation of agreeing with Josh: Having an Intro section makes reading any wordy document easier to immediately understand, and is therefore a good thing to do. Full stop. (I completely disagree with Josh's approval of using "punchy" language like Trump's insane quotes. Courts want a clear opinion, and want an opinion that is easy to read & understand. Including things like Trump's verbal diarrhea serve only to muddy the waters. [Sorry about the visually unpleasant metaphor.] )
They put these quotes in an introductory section because (a) it pleases Trump that they're quoting him; and (b) it allows them to skirt the ethical issues around saying false things in a brief.
David,
Oh, I get why they included it. I was making a backhand swipe at Josh, for choosing to use "punchy" as the descriptive adjective for the quoted Trump bullshit.
I think the average law professor with integrity would have used a more accurate description, like, "distracting and wildly inappropriate" rather than 'punchy,' . . . and that's certainly what Josh would have done, had it been a Democrat or a progressive speaker.
I just felt like his absence of credibility, honor, and integrity should be noted, for the record, by at least one poster . . . lest Josh think his, um, creative use of the English language was successfully distracting us.
Thank heavens we have JB to debunk these scandalous accusations.
Agreed that an introduction -- or, a precis as our more affected teachers would have -- is a gift to the reader.
SG briefs are important in our "some are more equal than others" world.
But in not all cases does the SG weigh in as a heavyweight. Some submissions are: "there's this, but then there's that...the Court will have to decide..." In short, the SG hints that it would have preferred not to have been asked.
In the midst of all this, in the midst of the transformation of the Supreme Court into the Court of Manufactured Emergencies, cases pile up with dozens of amici lining the dockets.
There's only so much one can read. If that sentiment has never appeared in a Supreme Court opinion, it should.