Former SGs are on a Roll…But Who Handles the Most Significant Cases

This article compares and ranks three of the most recent cases for five of the most recent SGs who are now in private practice.

Few roles in American law provide a better vantage point on constitutional structure, doctrinal development, and the institutional rhythms of the Supreme Court than that of the Solicitor General. Often described as the Court’s “tenth justice,” the Solicitor General occupies a uniquely dual position: both a trusted officer of the Court and the federal government’s chief appellate advocate. From this post, SGs develop deep fluency not only in legal substance but in what makes the Court move—how justices respond to argument, when precedent is vulnerable, and how to frame litigation with maximum institutional resonance.

It is no surprise, then, that former SGs have come to dominate the elite ranks of private Supreme Court advocacy. After leaving office, many parlay their experience into a second act as private litigators, often entrusted with the most consequential cases in the country. What distinguishes them is not just their courtroom skill, but their strategic insight—particularly in choosing cases that reach beyond the immediate dispute to shape doctrine, federal power, or the boundaries of constitutional rights.

The chart below situates the five advocates featured in this article— Seth Waxman, Paul Clement, Gregory Garre, Donald Verrilli, and Noel Francisco (the analysis ends with Francisco due to the focus on cases taken after leaving the office)—within the broader historical arc of the Solicitor General’s office. Spanning administrations from Grant to Trump, the timeline underscores how this small cadre of lawyers occupies a central and enduring place in shaping American constitutional development. All five of the featured attorneys held the SG role in the modern era, where the office has become both a launching pad for institutional defenders and a proving ground for strategic litigators.

This analysis examines the three of the most recent Supreme Court cases argued by these five former Solicitors General. Using a standardized scoring system that evaluates case importance across doctrinal impact, institutional position, advocacy prestige, external attention, and policy effect, this article compares the relative significance of the cases these advocates choose—and often win.¹ The focus is not merely on outcomes, but on what their case selection and courtroom performance reveal about the matters these attorneys currently handle and where and when they are called into action.

These former-SGs appear in cases that test the foundations of administrative law, federalism, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the future of regulatory and prosecutorial authority. Trends emerge: some pursue sweeping doctrinal change; others work to stabilize long-contested structures. What follows is a comparative portrait of how today's most experienced Supreme Court advocates are reshaping the law—not just through argument, but through the kinds of cases they bring to the Court’s door.

Seth Waxman

Glossip v. Oklahoma, 604 U.S. ____ (2025)

Overall Importance Score: 92 / 100

The Supreme Court reversed the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and held that the State’s failure to correct false testimony in Richard Glossip’s capital case violated Napue v. Illinois (1959). Justice Sotomayor’s opinion expanded due process doctrine and reaffirmed prosecutorial obligations, especially when the State itself confesses error—as Oklahoma’s Attorney General did here. The Court’s intervention underscored the supremacy of federal constitutional protections in post-conviction settings.

Doctrinal Impact (27 / 30)
[Precedent Overruled: 7 | Legal Scope: 10 | Citation Likelihood: 10]
While not overturning precedent, Glossip expands Napue by clarifying the scope of “materially false” testimony and rejecting procedural barriers to federal constitutional claims. It’s poised to reshape Brady/Napue litigation and habeas jurisprudence.

Institutional Position (25 / 25)
[Court Level: 10 | Opinion Author: 5 | Vote Salience: 5 | Government Role: 5]
The Court ruled despite the State joining Glossip’s side, with a court-appointed amicus defending the judgment below. Justice Sotomayor wrote for a majority that crossed ideological lines, reinforcing the case’s institutional and due process gravity.

Advocacy Prestige (15 / 15)
[Counsel Tier: 10 | Oral Argument Weight: 5]
Seth Waxman and Paul Clement—both former SGs—appeared on the same side. The Court appointed Christopher Michel, a top Supreme Court litigator, as amicus. This trio represented the highest possible level of Supreme Court advocacy.

External Attention (13 / 15)
[Amicus Volume: 5 | Amicus Diversity: 5 | Media/Academic Salience: 3]
Briefs came from a broad coalition, including civil liberties groups, legal scholars, and legislators. Media coverage was steady in legal outlets and NYT/WSJ, but less dominant than in structurally broader cases.

Policy or Legislative Effect (12 / 15)
[Policy Reach: 8 | Legislative Response: 4]
The ruling may reshape prosecutorial ethics and post-conviction procedures. Though no legislation has passed, several states—including Oklahoma—are reviewing disclosure and error-confession protocols in capital litigation.

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. ___ (2023)

Overall Importance Score: 98 / 100

In a landmark decision, the Court held that Harvard’s and UNC’s race-conscious admissions policies violated the Equal Protection Clause. Chief Justice Roberts’ 6–2 opinion (6-3 in the North Carolina case) overruled Grutter and declared race-based classifications in college admissions unconstitutional, reshaping American equal protection law.

Doctrinal Impact (30 / 30)

[Precedent Overruled: 10 | Legal Scope: 10 | Citation Likelihood: 10]

The Court eliminated the diversity rationale from Grutter, mandating strict scrutiny for all race-based policies. The ruling applies broadly across education, employment, and public contracting.

Institutional Position (25 / 25)

[Court Level: 10 | Opinion Author: 5 | Vote Salience: 5 | Government Role: 5]

A Roberts-authored majority, joined by the full conservative bloc, invalidated decades of precedent. The Solicitor General participated at argument, highlighting the case’s institutional stakes.

Advocacy Prestige (15 / 15)

[Counsel Tier: 10 | Oral Argument Weight: 5]

Cameron Norris argued for SFFA; Seth Waxman and SG Prelogar represented the respondents. The argument featured elite counsel and extensive engagement with constitutional and empirical claims.

External Attention (13 / 15)

[Amicus Volume: 5 | Amicus Diversity: 5 | Media/Academic Salience: 3]

Over 90 briefs spanned education, civil rights, business, and government. Media coverage was intense, though the complex legal rationale limited broader accessibility.

Policy or Legislative Effect (15 / 15)

[Policy Reach: 10 | Legislative Signal: 5]

The ruling transformed admissions policies nationwide and catalyzed new litigation against diversity-based programs. Institutions and legislatures are actively recalibrating to comply.