Curtis E. Gannon
Office of the Solicitor General · Washington, D.C. · Assistant to the Solicitor General, Deputy Solicitor General · argued OT 2010–2025
32arguments since OT 2010
19–12record (side argued for), 61%
59Justice remarks faced per argument (open period; all advocates 47)
61%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 2025 | Winston T. Hencely v. Fluor Corporation et al. | Amicus (for respondent) | Deputy Solicitor General | Lost | 36 | 58% |
| OT 2025 | Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. Doe I et al. | Amicus (for petitioner) | Deputy Solicitor General | Won | 62 | 53% |
| OT 2025 | Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Corporacion Cimex, S.A. (Cuba) et al. | Amicus (for petitioner) | Deputy Solicitor General | Won | 43 | 72% |
| OT 2024 | Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission | Amicus (for petitioner) | Deputy Solicitor General | Won | 48 | 52% |
| OT 2024 | FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC | Petitioner | Deputy Solicitor General | Won | 98 | 48% |
| OT 2023 | Department of State v. MuñOz | Petitioner | Deputy Solicitor General | Won | 87 | 56% |
| OT 2023 | Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. | Petitioner | Deputy Solicitor General | Won | 75 | 49% |
| OT 2022 | Pugin v. Garland | – | Deputy Solicitor General | – | 79 | 62% |
| OT 2022 | Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. | Amicus (for respondent) | Deputy Solicitor General | Lost | 28 | 50% |
| OT 2021 | Siegel v. Fitzgerald | Respondent | Deputy Solicitor General | Lost | 51 | 77% |
| OT 2021 | Garland v. Gonzalez | Petitioner | Deputy Solicitor General | Won | 39 | 71% |
| OT 2021 | United States v. Vaello Madero | Petitioner | Deputy Solicitor General | Won | 57 | 75% |
| OT 2020 | Nestle USA v. Doe I | Amicus (for petitioner) | Deputy Solicitor General | Won | 19 | 55% |
| OT 2016 | Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami, Florida | Amicus (for respondent) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 18 | 68% |
| OT 2015 | Nichols v. United States | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 89 | 74% |
| OT 2015 | Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 57 | 53% |
| OT 2015 | Green v. Brennan | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 41 | 67% |
| OT 2014 | Wellness International Network, Limited v. Sharif | Amicus (for petitioner) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 39 | 45% |
| OT 2014 | Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk | Amicus (for petitioner) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 14 | 73% |
| OT 2014 | Dot v. Ass'n of Am. R.R. | Petitioner | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 51 | 60% |
| OT 2013 | Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc | Amicus (for respondent) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 22 | 56% |
| OT 2013 | Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison | Amicus (for respondent) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 24 | – |
| OT 2013 | Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC | Amicus (for petitioner) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 3 | 50% |
| OT 2012 | Fane Lozman v. the City of Riviera Beach, Florida | Amicus (for petitioner) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 22 | 52% |
| OT 2012 | Randy Curtis Bullock v. Bankchampaign, N. A. | Amicus (for respondent) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 16 | 65% |
| OT 2012 | Lamar Evans v. Michigan | Amicus (for respondent) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 15 | – |
| OT 2011 | Asid Mohamad, Individually and for the Estate of Azzam Rahim, Deceased et al. v. Palestinian Authority et al. | Amicus (for respondent) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 11 | 75% |
| OT 2011 | Joel Judulang v. Eric H. Holder, JR., Attorney General | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 56 | 74% |
| OT 2011 | Akio Kawashima, Et Ux. v. Eric H. Holder, JR., Attorney General. | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 43 | 68% |
| OT 2010 | Clifton Terelle Mcneill v. United States | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 12 | 39% |
| OT 2010 | Janus Capital Group, Inc. et al. v. First Derivative Traders | Amicus (for respondent) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 30 | 74% |
| OT 2010 | William Freeman v. United States | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 57 | 72% |
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).