Jonathan F. Mitchell

Private practice · Stanford, Cal. · State Solicitor General, Attorney · argued OT 2011–2024

8arguments since OT 2010
5–3record (side argued for), 63%
85Justice remarks faced per argument (open period; all advocates 47)
67%of those remarks read as doubt by Jev (all advocates 63%)

Arguments by term

Side wonSide lostPending / unclear
21113151719212324

Arguments

TermCaseSideRoleResultRemarks facedDoubt (Jev)
OT 2024Kennedy v. Braidwood ManagementRespondentAttorneyLost14555%
OT 2023Trump v. AndersonPetitionerAttorneyWon17454%
OT 2023Garland v. CargillRespondentAttorneyWon14472%
OT 2021United States v. TexasRespondentAttorneyWon2073%
OT 2015Campbell-ewald Co. v. GomezRespondentAttorneyWon9164%
OT 2013EPA v. Eme Homer City GenerationRespondentState Solicitor GeneralLost3776%
OT 2013Util. Air Regulatory Group v. EPAPetitionerState Solicitor GeneralLost1884%
OT 2011Rafael Arriaza Gonzales v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions DivisionRespondentState Solicitor GeneralWon4758%

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).