![handle is hein.crs/governp0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
Presidential Transitions: A New
Administration's Potential Impact on Pending
Supreme Court Cases
November 18, 2024
As a presidential administration changes, so too may the litigating positions taken by the United States in
cases before the Supreme Court. Put differently, a change in [executive] personnel may bring a change in
[the executive's] jurisprudential commitments. These observations were provided by Michael Dreeben, a
former Deputy Solicitor General of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), which is a component of
the Department of Justice that is responsible for conduct[ing] all litigation on behalf of the United States
and its agencies in the Supreme Court of the United States. As Dreeben indicates, if a new presidential
administration takes office while a case is pending before the Supreme Court, the new administration's
OSG may, but need not, adhere to the prior administration's positions in that case.
This Sidebar examines shifts in OSG positions following the inauguration of a new President. It first
offers examples of such changes from the past three presidential administrations-reflecting past practice
and demonstrating the potential that a new presidential administration may assume a different course in a
pending Supreme Court case. It then presents two tables, one identifying the universe of accepted cases in
which the United States, represented by the OSG, is involved, and the other listing petitions in which the
Supreme Court has invited OSG involvement. These tables thus capture the cases in which a new
Solicitor General could announce a change in position that could then have a downstream effect on cases
before the Court. The Sidebar concludes with considerations for Congress.
OSG Litigation Position Changes: Past Examples and Practical Impact
Changes in position by a new OSG are not uncommon and may have a meaningful impact on pending
Supreme Court cases. To illustrate, the OSG has shifted at least some positions in each of the last three
changes in presidential administrations. For example, a Solicitor General appointed by President Obama
wrote in Puerto Rico v Sanchez T'lle that the arguments advanced by prior administrations regarding the
dual sovereignty of Puerto Rico and the United States for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause do not
reflect the considered view ofthe [current] Executive Branch; a Solicitor General appointed by President
Trump disclosed in Janus v. American Federation ofState, County, andMunicipal Employees, Council
31, that the government reconsidered the First Amendment question regarding public employees'
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB11249
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.crs/governp0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most