Maria Santos remembers the exact moment she realized how much the Supreme Court could change her life. It was 2018, and she was sitting in her Phoenix immigration attorney’s office when news broke about a major Court decision affecting asylum seekers. “My lawyer looked at me and said, ‘This changes everything for your case,'” she recalls. “I had no idea nine people in black robes could decide whether I could stay in this country or not.”
What Maria didn’t know then was that behind those landmark decisions, there’s usually another powerful voice whispering in the justices’ ears: the U.S. Solicitor General. This top government lawyer has traditionally been called the “10th justice” for good reason – their recommendations carry enormous weight in determining which cases the Court will even hear.
But something unusual is happening in Washington right now. The Trump DOJ Supreme Court strategy has taken an aggressive new turn that’s catching legal experts off guard. Instead of waiting to be asked for advice, they’re showing up uninvited to major cases with recommendations nobody requested.
When the Government Crashes the Party
Think of it like this: imagine you’re having a private conversation about a serious family matter, and suddenly your neighbor barges in with their opinion about what you should do. That’s essentially what’s happening at the Supreme Court level.
Traditionally, the process works like a careful dance. The Supreme Court receives thousands of petition requests each year from people and organizations asking the justices to hear their cases. When the Court wants the federal government’s perspective, they formally ask the Solicitor General to weigh in. This request, known as a “CVSG” (Call for Views of the Solicitor General), is treated with respect and restraint.
“The solicitor general’s credibility has always rested on stepping in rarely, and only when the government’s broader interests are truly at stake,” explains Professor Janet Morrison, a constitutional law expert at Georgetown University. “That careful approach is what gives their recommendations such influence.”
Under Solicitor General D. John Sauer, that traditional restraint is being tossed aside. The Trump administration’s Justice Department is now filing “friend of the court” briefs at the petition stage without waiting for any invitation from the justices.
Legal observers say this represents a fundamental shift in how the executive branch interacts with the judicial branch. The unsolicited briefs tend to support conservative legal positions on hot-button issues like gun rights, religious freedom, and immigration.
The Numbers Tell a Startling Story
The data reveals just how dramatic this shift has become. Here’s what the Trump DOJ Supreme Court approach looks like in practice:
| Administration | Uninvited Briefs Per Year | Success Rate When Supporting Cases | Primary Focus Areas |
|---|---|---|---|
| Obama (2016) | 2-3 | 78% | Civil rights, environmental |
| Trump (First term) | 5-7 | 65% | Immigration, religious liberty |
| Biden (2024) | 1-2 | 82% | Voting rights, healthcare |
| Trump (2025-present) | 12+ | TBD | Gun rights, immigration, religious freedom |
The current pace represents a six-fold increase over typical patterns. Court watchers are particularly concerned about several specific areas where these uninvited recommendations are appearing:
- Immigration cases – Supporting state efforts to enforce federal immigration law
- Religious liberty disputes – Backing faith-based organizations in discrimination claims
- Gun rights appeals – Encouraging broad interpretations of Second Amendment protections
- Environmental regulations – Opposing climate change-related lawsuits
- Election law challenges – Supporting voter ID requirements and ballot restrictions
“What we’re seeing is the weaponization of the solicitor general’s office,” argues former Justice Department attorney Rebecca Chen. “These aren’t measured legal opinions – they’re political talking points dressed up in legal language.”
Real People, Real Consequences
For people like Maria Santos, these behind-the-scenes legal maneuvers can have life-changing implications. When the Trump DOJ Supreme Court team files an uninvited brief supporting stricter immigration enforcement, it doesn’t just influence one case – it signals to lower courts across the country how the federal government views these issues.
Consider what happened in recent months. The Justice Department filed unsolicited briefs in three separate gun rights cases, each time urging the Court to hear appeals that would expand concealed carry rights. Meanwhile, families affected by gun violence watched as their state’s carefully crafted safety laws faced potential federal challenges.
“Every time they file one of these briefs, real families are impacted,” says Dr. Michael Torres, who studies Supreme Court influence patterns. “A brief about religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws affects LGBTQ+ couples trying to adopt. An immigration brief affects children wondering if their parents will be deported.”
The strategy also appears designed to pressure the Court’s conservative majority to take on more cases aligned with Trump’s political agenda. By filing these recommendations early and frequently, the administration ensures its voice is heard even in cases where the justices might prefer to avoid controversy.
Legal scholars worry about the long-term implications. When the solicitor general’s office loses its reputation for restraint and objectivity, it could permanently damage the relationship between the executive and judicial branches.
“The 10th justice nickname only works when that justice acts with judicial temperament,” notes Professor Morrison. “If the solicitor general becomes just another political advocate, the Supreme Court might start ignoring their recommendations entirely.”
This shift comes at a time when public trust in the Supreme Court has already reached historic lows. Recent polling shows only 40% of Americans have confidence in the Court’s ability to make impartial decisions.
The Trump administration’s supporters argue that previous solicitors general were too passive in defending conservative legal principles. They view the aggressive brief-filing strategy as correcting years of liberal judicial activism.
However, critics worry that this approach could backfire spectacularly. If the Court begins viewing the solicitor general’s office as overtly political, future administrations – both Republican and Democratic – might find their voices carry less weight when they truly need Supreme Court attention.
For now, the justices haven’t publicly responded to this flood of uninvited advice. But court watchers are paying close attention to which cases the Court chooses to hear in the coming months – and whether they follow the Trump DOJ’s unsolicited recommendations.
FAQs
What is the Solicitor General’s traditional role at the Supreme Court?
The Solicitor General represents the federal government before the Supreme Court and typically only weighs in on cases when the Court specifically asks for the government’s opinion.
Why is the Trump DOJ filing uninvited briefs unusual?
Previous administrations have rarely filed “friend of the court” briefs without being asked, making this aggressive approach a significant departure from normal practice.
How many uninvited briefs is the current administration filing?
The Trump administration is filing over 12 uninvited briefs per year, compared to 2-3 under previous administrations.
What types of cases are getting these unsolicited recommendations?
The briefs primarily focus on conservative priorities like gun rights, immigration enforcement, religious liberty, and election law.
Could this strategy backfire for the Trump administration?
Legal experts worry that if the Solicitor General’s office loses its reputation for restraint, the Supreme Court might begin ignoring their recommendations entirely.
How does this affect ordinary Americans?
These briefs can influence which cases the Court hears and how they’re decided, potentially affecting everything from immigration status to gun laws to religious freedom protections.
About the Author
