Sarah E. Harrington
Private practice · Bethesda, Maryland · Assistant to the Solicitor General, Attorney · argued OT 2010–2025
22arguments since OT 2010
10–12record (side argued for), 45%
65Justice remarks faced per argument (open period; all advocates 47)
62%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 2025 | Hain Celestial Group, Inc. et al. v. Palmquist, Individually and As Next Friend of E. P., A Minor et al. | Petitioner | Attorney | Lost | 58 | 66% |
| OT 2020 | Republic of Hungary v. Simon | Respondent | Attorney | Lost | 36 | 64% |
| OT 2019 | Kansas v. Glover | Respondent | Attorney | Lost | 110 | 63% |
| OT 2016 | Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates | Amicus (for petitioner) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 19 | 45% |
| OT 2016 | Midland Funding LLC v. Johnson | Amicus (for respondent) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 32 | 64% |
| OT 2016 | Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. | Amicus (for petitioner) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 17 | 56% |
| OT 2015 | Sheriff v. Gillie | Amicus (for respondent) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 23 | 92% |
| OT 2015 | Husky International Electronics, Inc., v. Ritz | Amicus (for petitioner) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 5 | 33% |
| OT 2015 | Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission | Amicus (for respondent) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 27 | 64% |
| OT 2014 | Mcfadden v. United States | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 66 | 72% |
| OT 2014 | Warger v. Shauers | Amicus (for respondent) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 0 | 0% |
| OT 2014 | Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank | Amicus (for respondent) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 9 | 70% |
| OT 2013 | United States v. Clarke | Petitioner | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 58 | 48% |
| OT 2013 | Robers v. United States | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 86 | 51% |
| OT 2013 | Law v. Siegel | Amicus (for respondent) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 9 | 80% |
| OT 2012 | Sekhar v. United States | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 62 | 79% |
| OT 2012 | Calvin Smith v. United States | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 67 | 50% |
| OT 2012 | Carolyn M. Kloeckner v. Hilda L. Solis, Secretary of Labor | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 50 | 78% |
| OT 2011 | Radlax Gateway Hotel, LLC et al. v. Amalgamated Bank | Amicus (for respondent) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Won | 9 | 50% |
| OT 2011 | Gloria Gail Kurns, Executrix of the Estate of George M. Corson, Deceased et al. v. Railroad Friction Products Corporation et al. | Amicus (for petitioner) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 20 | 86% |
| OT 2010 | Charles Andrew Fowler, Aka Man v. United States | Respondent | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 57 | 69% |
| OT 2010 | Harvey Leroy Sossamon, III v. Texas et al. | Amicus (for petitioner) | Assistant to the Solicitor General | Lost | 17 | 78% |
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).