Brian H. Fletcher
Office of the Solicitor General · Washington, D.C. · Assistant to the Solicitor General, Deputy Solicitor General, Office of the Solicitor General · argued OT 2013–2024
22arguments since OT 2010
7–11record (side argued for), 39%
72Justice remarks faced per argument (open period; all advocates 47)
60%of those remarks read as doubt by Jev (all advocates 63%)
Arguments by term
Side wonSide lostPending / unclear
Arguments
| Term | Case | Side | Role | Result | Remarks faced | Doubt (Jev) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OT 2024 | Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton | Amicus (for petitioner) | Deputy Solicitor General | Lost | 64 | 34% |
| OT 2023 | Murthy v. Missouri | Petitioner | Deputy Solicitor General | Won | 96 | 42% |
| OT 2023 | Garland v. Cargill | Petitioner | Deputy Solicitor General | Lost | 58 | 62% |
| OT 2023 | Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy | Petitioner | Deputy Solicitor General | Lost | 152 | 57% |
| OT 2022 | United States v. Hansen | Petitioner | Deputy Solicitor General | Won | 79 | 65% |
| OT 2022 | 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis | Amicus (for respondent) | Deputy Solicitor General | Lost | 69 | 61% |
| OT 2022 | Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency | Respondent | Deputy Solicitor General | Lost | 107 | 62% |
| OT 2021 | Biden v. Missouri | – | Deputy Solicitor General | – | 46 | 52% |
| OT 2021 | New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen | Amicus (for respondent) | Deputy Solicitor General | Lost | 20 | 68% |
| OT 2021 | United States v. Zubaydah | Petitioner | Office of the Solicitor General | Won | 63 | 55% |
| OT 2021 | Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, California | Respondent | Deputy Solicitor General | Won | 67 | 56% |
| OT 2017 | Dalmazzi v. United States | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 36 | 54% |
| OT 2017 | Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC | Amicus | Assistant to the Solicitor General | – | 21 | 46% |
| OT 2017 | Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. | Amicus | Assistant to the Solicitor General | – | 19 | 50% |
| OT 2016 | Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Bd. | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 61 | 74% |
| OT 2016 | Honeycutt v. United States | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 64 | 69% |
| OT 2016 | Samsung Electronics v. Apple | Amicus | Assistant to the Solicitor General | – | 20 | 38% |
| OT 2015 | Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore | Amicus (for petitioner) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 27 | – |
| OT 2015 | CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 60 | 74% |
| OT 2014 | Baker Botts, L.L.P., v. Asarco, L.L.C. | Amicus (for petitioner) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 18 | 74% |
| OT 2014 | Whitfield v. United States | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 43 | 77% |
| OT 2013 | Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys. | Amicus (for petitioner) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 4 | 80% |
Names, roles and sides from each transcript's list of appearances; results from the Supreme Court Database (did the side argued for win). Remarks faced: Justice turns of five words or more right after this advocate spoke, open period only. Doubt: TypeSafe's Jev reading of those remarks (an experiment, available where our research run covered the case).