Mark C. Fleming
Private practice · Boston, Mass · Attorney · argued OT 2010–2022
8arguments since OT 2010
4–3record (side argued for), 57%
42Justice remarks faced per argument (open period; all advocates 47)
59%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 | Pugin v. Garland | – | Attorney | – | 48 | 61% |
| OT 2021 | Patel v. Garland | Petitioner | Attorney | Lost | 38 | 49% |
| OT 2019 | United States v. Sineneng-smith | Respondent | Attorney | Lost | 39 | 53% |
| OT 2015 | Mathis v. United States | Petitioner | Attorney | Won | 67 | 59% |
| OT 2014 | Mata v. Lynch | Petitioner | Attorney | Won | 18 | 63% |
| OT 2013 | Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio | Respondent | Attorney | Lost | 45 | 50% |
| OT 2011 | Joel Judulang v. Eric H. Holder, JR., Attorney General | Petitioner | Attorney | Won | 25 | 67% |
| OT 2010 | Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al. | Respondent | Attorney | Won | 58 | 70% |
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).