Rachel P. Kovner
Office of the Solicitor General · Washington, D.C. · Assistant to the Solicitor General · argued OT 2013–2018
13arguments since OT 2010
5–7record (side argued for), 42%
46Justice remarks faced per argument (open period; all advocates 47)
64%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 2018 | PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc., | Amicus | Assistant to the Solicitor General | – | 32 | 52% |
| OT 2018 | BNSF Railway Company v. Loos | Amicus (for petitioner) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 7 | 63% |
| OT 2017 | Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 37 | 71% |
| OT 2017 | Hughes v. United States | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 36 | 57% |
| OT 2017 | National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 55 | 61% |
| OT 2016 | Bristol-myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Ca. | Amicus (for petitioner) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 22 | 46% |
| OT 2016 | Pena-rodriguez v. Colorado | Amicus (for respondent) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 9 | 70% |
| OT 2016 | Mclane Company v. Eeoc | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 11 | 83% |
| OT 2015 | Kansas v. Carr | Amicus (for petitioner) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 16 | – |
| OT 2015 | Sturgeon v. Frost | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 86 | – |
| OT 2014 | Heien v. North Carolina | Amicus (for respondent) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 18 | 58% |
| OT 2014 | Mellouli v. Lynch | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 53 | 85% |
| OT 2013 | Prado Navarette v. California | Amicus (for respondent) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 17 | 61% |
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).