State and Federal Solicitors General Share Perspectives with UVA Students
On Thursday, March 19, 2025, the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic hosted the Solicitor General of Ohio Mathura Sridharan and former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States Sarah Harrington for a panel discussion on the role of the solicitor general at the state and federal levels.
“The Solicitor General: State and Federal Perspectives” panel discussion was moderated by Professor Xiao Wang, Assistant Professor of Law and Director of the UVA Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, and Bob Long, a former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States and current co-chair of Covington & Burling’s Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation Group.
Solicitor General Sridharan has served as Ohio’s Solicitor General since 2025. Sridharan began the panel discussion by describing the traditional role of a state Solicitor General, and the role of the Solicitor General Office in Ohio. She explained that the Ohio Solicitor General operates similarly at a structural level to the United States Solicitor General, overseeing most appeals at the federal and state levels. The Ohio Solicitor General additionally files amicus briefs in both criminal and civil cases at the Ohio Supreme Court, represents the constitutional offices of Ohio, defends state executive agencies, and pursues affirmative litigation against the federal government.
Sarah Harrington is the current co-chair of Covington & Burling’s Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation Group, and previously worked as Assistant to the Solicitor General. Harrington began her career as an attorney in the Appellate Section of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. Under the Biden Administration, Harrington served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Civil Division’s Appellate Staff. Harrington described the role of the Solicitor General in the federal government as the fourth-ranking official in the Department of Justice, overseeing appellate litigation within the federal government and litigating at the Supreme Court. She also highlighted how the growth of the Supreme Court’s emergency docket has altered the role of the Solicitor General.
Sridharan and Harrington walked through the life of an appeal in their respective offices. On the federal side, an interested party submits a memo to the Solicitor General, which is reviewed through a collaborative process within the office, with a decision eventually being made by the Solicitor General whether to file an appeal.
When it came time to brief the case, Harrington relished the opportunity to put on her hat as a “law nerd” and advocate the correct answer on legal issues. Harrington explained that when briefing and arguing cases for the Solicitor General, it is often about winning the particular legal issues rather than the case. She described how the Solicitor General gears its advocacy to the future and securing legal rules that win subsequent cases. When such a victory is not possible, Harrington stated that the Solicitor General may seek a “soft-landing,” meaning accepting a loss but securing a preferable rule for future cases. Sridharan echoed Harrington’s federal perspective, stating that as a state solicitor general it is often about winning particular legal issues rather than the case, and reaching the correct legal answer for future cases. Sridharan described the additional responsibility as a public servant to get it right for the client and the public.
At the brief and oral argument stages, Sridharan and Harrington discussed tailoring advocacy to particular judges and justices based on judicial philosophy or methodology. Sridharan explained that Ohio Supreme Court justices are selected through partisan elections, but this does not necessarily infuse partisanship and politics into the appellate process. However, Sridharan argued that advocacy is inherent to tailoring legal arguments to the methodology and legal views of certain judges. Harrington similarly described how Supreme Court advocates tailor their arguments to swing justices, particularly to Justice Kennedy when he served on the court. But Harrington noted that the current makeup of the Supreme Court has shifted this dynamic. Harrington additionally explained that tailoring to judges’ judicial philosophy may change depending on the nature of the case before the court and its political valence.
Sridharan specifically detailed the role of a state solicitor general in initiating litigation against the federal government or filing amicus briefs in coordination with other states. Sridharan described the coordination mechanisms between states and the formation of bipartisan coalitions of states in pending litigation. Sridharan noted that various considerations are weighed when determining whether to intervene in pending litigation. Some amicus briefs may pertain to Sixth Circuit-specific issues, while other amici engage with national issues with a bipartisan coalition of states. She highlighted an amicus brief Ohio filed in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, with twenty-eight other states and the District of Columbia.1 Sridharan pointed to Caribe Transport II, LLC as a prime example of bipartisan state coalitions authoring amici briefs. In Caribe Transport II, LLC, twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia sought to convince the Supreme Court that a federal statute deregulating the trucking industry did not preempt state tort law. The Solicitor General of Ohio additionally files lawsuits against the federal government, but sometimes may align with the federal government and administrative agencies on legal issues. Harrington remarked that the Supreme Court has seen a growth in partisan coalitions of states intervening in cases of great political importance.
After the discussion moderated by Wang and Long, students from the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic were invited to ask Harrington and Sridharan questions. Students asked how oral argument before the Supreme Court differs from that in other courts. Harrington, who has argued twenty-two cases before the Supreme Court, pointed to substance as the most striking difference between other courts. She noted that, unlike circuit courts, precedent does not constrain the court and advocates are not arguing within that box of precedent. Instead, Harrington stated that advocates must convince the justices why they should hold in their favor and not why they must rule for them based on precedent. Harrington expressed that the big picture of “why” differentiates the Supreme Court most from lower courts. Students also asked about the brief writing styles at solicitors general’s offices. Both Harrington and Sridharan characterized the writing style in their respective offices to be focused particularly on analysis and lacking in artful prose. Harrington described the brief writing style as “grey,” matching the grey brief cover of the Solicitor General of the United States.
Students lastly asked how Harrington and Sridharan arrived at their respective positions as Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States and the Ohio Solicitor General. Sridharan quoted her civil procedure professor at NYU, Arthur Miller, stating, “life is mostly fortuitous.” Sridharan transitioned careers multiple times before attending law school and never planned to practice appellate law. But she emphasized that she loved her work as Solicitor General. Harrington similarly called her path to Assistant to the Solicitor General fortuitous, remarking that after working in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, she applied multiple times to the Solicitor General's Office before finally being accepted. Harrington spent eight years at the Solicitor General's Office.
Both Harrington and Sridharan expressed interest in representing the United States and Ohio, respectively, as a solicitor general. Sridharan ended the discussion by promoting public service work and the work of solicitors general’s offices, stating that it is a privilege to represent the people and that “public service is fun.”
Author: Sam Koeppel 28’