Paul M. Smith
Private practice · Washington, D.C. · Attorney · argued OT 2010–2017
8arguments since OT 2010
3–5record (side argued for), 38%
48Justice 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 2017 | Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute | Respondent | Attorney | Lost | 81 | 54% |
| OT 2017 | Gill v. Whitford | Respondent | Attorney | Lost | 45 | 72% |
| OT 2015 | Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. | Respondent | Attorney | Lost | 28 | – |
| OT 2015 | Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission | Respondent | Attorney | Won | 30 | 61% |
| OT 2015 | CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | Petitioner | Attorney | Won | 47 | 59% |
| OT 2014 | Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency | Respondent | Attorney | Lost | 34 | 49% |
| OT 2013 | Harris v. Quinn | Respondent | Attorney | Lost | 45 | 72% |
| OT 2010 | Edmund G. Brown, JR., Governor of California et al. v. Entertainment Merchants Association et al. | Respondent | Attorney | Won | 71 | – |
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).