Greg Garre | |
---|---|
44th Solicitor General of the United States | |
In office June 19, 2008 –January 20, 2009 | |
President | George W. Bush |
Preceded by | Paul Clement |
Succeeded by | Elena Kagan |
Personal details | |
Born | Berwyn,Pennsylvania,U.S. | November 1,1964
Political party | Republican |
Education | Dartmouth College (BA) George Washington University (JD) |
Gregory G. Garre (born November 1,1964) is an American lawyer who served as the 44th United States Solicitor General from June 19,2008,to January 16,2009. [1] He is currently a partner at Latham &Watkins,a private law firm. [2]
Gregory G. Garre was born in Berwyn,Pennsylvania,and grew up in Barrington,Illinois,where he attended Barrington public schools. [3] He graduated cum laude in 1987 from Dartmouth College,where he was a Rufus Choate Scholar,with a B.A. in government. In 1991,he graduated with high honors from George Washington University Law School,where he was editor-in-chief of The George Washington Law Review and was selected to Order of the Coif. [4]
Garre clerked for Chief Judge Anthony Joseph Scirica of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1991–92),and then for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist of the United States Supreme Court (1992–93). He served as a pallbearer at Rehnquist's funeral in September 2005. [5]
He then went into private practice with the Washington,D.C. law firm Hogan &Hartson from 1993 to 2000. In September 2000 Garre joined the Office of the Solicitor General at the Department of Justice as Assistant to the Solicitor General. In this capacity,in August 2002,he represented the government at Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 243 F. Supp. 2d 527 (E.D. Va. 2002),notable as "the first in modern American jurisprudence in which an American citizen has been indefinitely detained without charges and without access to a lawyer",and endured aggressive questioning from Judge Robert G. Doumar. [6] [7] He also argued Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. He returned to Hogan &Hartson in July 2004.
Garre returned to government in September 2005 as Principal Deputy Solicitor General. In this role,he represented the government in Munaf v. Geren ,553 U.S. 674 (2008),arguing before the Supreme Court that U.S. federal courts lacked jurisdiction over two U.S. citizens being held by the military in Iraq based on Hirota v. MacArthur ,a 1948 Supreme Court case that "rejected habeas corpus petitions from Japanese prisoners who had been convicted of war crimes by an international tribunal". [8] He also won Baze v. Rees (2008).
He became Acting Solicitor General on June 19,2008,when his predecessor Paul Clement resigned. The same day,President George W. Bush nominated him to be Solicitor General. [3] He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate unanimously on October 2,2008. [9] According to his bio on the Latham &Watkins website,he is "the only person to have held all of those positions". [2]
As Acting Solicitor General,he successfully argued on behalf of the government in the first adversarial appeal heard by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in its 30-year history. [10] [11] After he was sworn in as Solicitor General,he won all of his cases,including Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council —for which he received the Distinguished Public Service Award from the U.S. Navy,its highest civilian honor,for his defense of the Navy's right to use sonar during training exercises— FCC v. Fox Television Stations,Inc. ,and Ashcroft v. Iqbal ,which clarified that the gateway requirements announced in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly applied to all civil litigation in the federal courts. [2]
On September 8,2009,he joined the law firm Latham &Watkins,where he leads the Supreme Court and Appellate Practice Group. In 2014,Garre was elected to both the American Law Institute and the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. [2] He has taught classes on constitutional law and the U.S. Supreme Court at George Washington University Law School,his alma mater,and he is a member of the advisory board of the Georgetown University Law School's Supreme Court Institute. [4]
At Latham &Watkins,he successfully represented the University of California,Hastings College of the Law in April 2010 in the Supreme Court case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez , [12] which the firm took on pro bono. [13] A little over a week later,he successfully represented Monsanto in Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms ,overturning the Ninth Circuit's injunction on genetically engineered pesticide-resistant alfalfa. [14] [15] In October 2011 he successfully argued Maples v. Thomas . [16] In October 2012,he unsuccessfully represented the University of Texas at Austin in Fisher v. University of Texas ,a high-profile constitutional challenge to its admissions policy in which the Supreme Court issued a 7–1 decision to vacate a lower court's decision which was in favour of the university. [17] In November 2012,he successfully represented Ball State University in Vance v. Ball State University ,a case about employment discrimination in which the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision in favor of Ball State. [18]
The solicitor general of the United States,the fourth-highest ranking official within the United States Department of Justice,represents the federal government in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Elizabeth Prelogar has served in the role since October 28,2021.
Craig v. Boren,429 U.S. 190 (1976),was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that statutory or administrative sex classifications were subject to intermediate scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The case was argued by future Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg while she was working for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Van Orden v. Perry,545 U.S. 677 (2005),is a United States Supreme Court case involving whether a display of the Ten Commandments on a monument given to the government at the Texas State Capitol in Austin violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
John Glover Roberts Jr. is an American lawyer and jurist who has served as the 17th chief justice of the United States since 2005. He has been described as having a moderate conservative judicial philosophy,though he is primarily an institutionalist. He has shown a willingness to work with the Supreme Court's liberal bloc,and has been regarded as a swing vote on the Court.
Paul Drew Clement is an American lawyer who served as U.S. Solicitor General from 2004 to 2008 and is known for his advocacy before the U.S. Supreme Court. He established his own law firm,Clement &Murphy,in 2022 after leaving Kirkland &Ellis,following that firm’s decision to end its Second Amendment work. He is also a Distinguished Lecturer in Law at Georgetown University and an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law. He was nominated by President George W. Bush on March 14,2005,for the post of Solicitor General,confirmed by the United States Senate on June 8,2005,and took the oath of office on June 13.
Maureen E. Mahoney is a former deputy solicitor general and an appellate lawyer at the law firm of Latham &Watkins in Washington,D.C.,who has argued cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. Notably,she argued on behalf of the University of Michigan and its affirmative action program in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003),in which the Court decided in favor of Michigan by a 5–4 vote.
Philip Jonathan Perry is an American attorney and was a political appointee in the administration of George W. Bush. He was acting associate attorney general at the Department of Justice,general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget,and general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security. He is a partner at Latham &Watkins in Washington,D.C. He has handled matters before the U.S. Supreme Court,the U.S. Courts of Appeals,and U.S. District Courts across the country. He is known both for his work litigating biotechnology issues and his work on constitutional and federal regulatory matters. Perry was named a "Litigation Trailblazer" by The National Law Journal in 2018 for his "remarkable successes" in litigation,and has seen continued success in 2019,winning cases in both federal appellate and trial courts. He is the husband of Congresswoman Liz Cheney and the son-in-law of former Vice President Dick Cheney.
Neal Kumar Katyal is an American corporate lawyer and academic. He is a partner at Hogan Lovells and the Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of National Security Law at Georgetown University Law Center. During the Obama administration,Katyal served as Acting Solicitor General of the United States from May 2010 until June 2011. Previously,Katyal served as an attorney in the Solicitor General's office,and as Principal Deputy Solicitor General in the U.S. Justice Department.
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry,548 U.S. 399 (2006),is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that only District 23 of the 2003 Texas redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act. The Court refused to throw out the entire plan,ruling that the plaintiffs failed to state a sufficient claim of partisan gerrymandering.
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council,555 U.S. 7 (2008),was a decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning whether federal law restricted the United States Navy's ability to use sonar during drills given the possibility of a harmful effect on marine mammals such as whales.
Edwin Smiley Kneedler is an American lawyer who has served as Deputy United States Solicitor General since 1993. As of June 2020,he has argued more cases before the Supreme Court of the United States than any other active advocate.
Donald Beaton Verrilli Jr. is an American lawyer who served as the solicitor general of the United States from 2011 to 2016. President Barack Obama nominated Verrilli to the post on January 26,2011. On June 6,the United States Senate confirmed Verrilli in a 72–16 vote,and he was sworn in on June 9. Verrilli previously served in the Obama administration as the associate deputy attorney general and as Deputy Counsel to the President. He is currently a partner in the Washington,D.C. office of Munger,Tolles &Olson and a lecturer at Columbia University Law School,his alma mater.
David Charles Frederick is an appellate attorney in Washington,D.C.,and is a partner with Kellogg,Hansen,Todd,Figel &Frederick,P.L.L.C. He has argued over 50 cases before the Supreme Court.
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez,561 U.S. 661 (2010),is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld,against a First Amendment challenge,the policy of the University of California,Hastings College of the Law,governing official recognition of student groups,which required the groups to accept all students regardless of their status or beliefs in order to obtain recognition.
John J. Bursch was the 10th Michigan Solicitor General. He was appointed by Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette on February 28,2011. Prior to being Michigan Solicitor General,Bursch served as chair of the Appellate Practice and Public-Affairs Litigation Groups at Warner Norcross &Judd. Bursch argued in more than 6% of all the cases the U.S. Supreme Court heard during his tenure as solicitor general. Bursch returned to private practice at Warner Norcross &Judd in December 2013,and founded his own law firm in 2016,Bursch Law.
Fisher v. University of Texas,570 U.S. 297 (2013),also known as Fisher I,is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin. The Supreme Court voided the lower appellate court's ruling in favor of the university and remanded the case,holding that the lower court had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny,articulated in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978),to its admissions program. The Court's ruling in Fisher took Grutter and Bakke as given and did not directly revisit the constitutionality of using race as a factor in college admissions.
Bowman v. Monsanto Co.,569 U.S. 278 (2013),was a United States Supreme Court patent decision in which the Court unanimously affirmed the decision of the Federal Circuit that the patent exhaustion doctrine does not permit a farmer to plant and grow saved,patented seeds without the patent owner's permission. The case arose after Vernon Hugh Bowman,an Indiana farmer,bought transgenic soybean crop seeds from a local grain elevator for his second crop of the season. Monsanto originally sold the seed from which these soybeans were grown to farmers under a limited use license that prohibited the farmer-buyer from using the seeds for more than a single season or from saving any seed produced from the crop for replanting. The farmers sold their soybean crops to the local grain elevator,from which Bowman then bought them. After Bowman replanted the crop seeds for his second harvest,Monsanto filed a lawsuit claiming that he infringed on their patents by replanting soybeans without a license. In response,Bowman argued that Monsanto's claims were barred under the doctrine of patent exhaustion,because all future generations of soybeans were embodied in the first generation that was originally sold.
Cooper v. Harris,581 U.S. ___ (2017),is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court ruled 5–3 that the North Carolina General Assembly used race too heavily in re-drawing two Congressional districts following the 2010 Census.
Jeffrey Bryan Wall is an American attorney and former government official who served as the acting Solicitor General of the United States and the Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States during the Donald Trump administration. He is now a partner and head of Supreme Court and Appellate Practice at Sullivan &Cromwell in New York and Washington,DC.
Babb v. Wilkie,589 U.S. ___ (2020),is a case of the United States Supreme Court in which the justices considered the scope of protections for federal employees in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Specifically,the Court ruled that plaintiffs only need to prove that age was a motivating factor in the decision in order to sue. However,establishing but for causation is still necessary in determining the appropriate remedy. If a plaintiff can establish that the age was the determining factor in the employment outcome,they may be entitled to compensatory damages or other relief relating to the result of the employment decision.