Do Ex-Solicitors General Wield Too Much Influence in Supreme Court?
The U.S. Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is more likely to reach a conservative result in business cases, according to a study of decisions issued since 1953. Should the credit go to former Justice Department lawyers hired by corporations for their oral arguments?
According to a New York Times editorial, the answer may be yes. One reason for pro-business decisions, aside from the court’s conservative tilt, may be the hired “big guns” who formerly worked in the Solicitor General’s office, the newspaper says. This term alone, former solicitors general Gregory Garre, Theodore Olson and Seth Waxman have represented business clients before the court.
“Former solicitors general used to be more likely to become professors, judges or other kinds of public servants,” the editorial says. “Now they are more likely to build corporate practices. With the exception of Justice Elena Kagan and one other, every former solicitor general for the past 15 years leads a law firm group representing business clients.”
The Times opines that the justices should ask themselves whether they “unconsciously and unfairly” defer to former solicitors general.
