Ian H. Gershengorn
Private practice · Washington, D.C. · Deputy Solicitor General, Office of the Solicitor General, Attorney · argued OT 2013–2022
15arguments since OT 2010
8–4record (side argued for), 67%
45Justice 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 2022 | Haaland v. Brackeen | – | Attorney | – | 57 | 49% |
| OT 2019 | Mcgirt v. Oklahoma | Petitioner | Attorney | Won | 20 | 35% |
| OT 2018 | No. 17-1107 | Respondent | Attorney | – | 40 | – |
| OT 2016 | Ziglar v. Abbasi | Petitioner | Office of the Solicitor General | Won | 18 | 50% |
| OT 2016 | NLRB v. SW General, Inc. | Petitioner | Office of the Solicitor General | Lost | 25 | 82% |
| OT 2016 | No. 15-1204 | Petitioner | Office of the Solicitor General | – | 69 | – |
| OT 2015 | Evenwel v. Abbott | Amicus (for respondent) | Deputy Solicitor General | Won | 10 | 46% |
| OT 2015 | Wittman v. Personhuballah | Amicus (for respondent) | Deputy Solicitor General | Won | 11 | 58% |
| OT 2015 | Birchfield v. North Dakota | Amicus (for respondent) | Deputy Solicitor General | Lost | 14 | 40% |
| OT 2014 | Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. | Petitioner | Deputy Solicitor General | Won | 56 | 71% |
| OT 2014 | Dep't of Homeland SEC. v. Maclean | Petitioner | Deputy Solicitor General | Lost | 55 | 68% |
| OT 2013 | Lane v. Franks | Amicus (for respondent) | Deputy Solicitor General | Won | 13 | 71% |
| OT 2013 | Wood v. Moss | Petitioner | Deputy Solicitor General | Won | 63 | 68% |
| OT 2013 | Town of Greece v. Galloway | Amicus (for petitioner) | Deputy Solicitor General | Won | 18 | 84% |
| OT 2013 | Mccullen v. Coakley | Amicus (for respondent) | Deputy Solicitor General | Lost | 23 | 58% |
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).