Attorneys from the Office of the Solicitor General are scheduled to participate in nine out of the twelve cases scheduled for oral argument during the October sitting. In five cases – Reynolds v. United States, Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, Golan v. Holder, Pacific Operators v. Valladolid, Judulang v. Holder – the OSG will represent either the petitioner or respondent.
In four cases, the Office of the Solicitor General will argue as an amicus curiae: Douglas v. Independent Living Center, Martinez v. Ryan, Howes v. Fields, Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders. The federal government will not participate in oral arguments in three cases: Maples v. Thomas, CompuCredit v. Greenwood, Greene v. Fisher.
Last year, representatives from the OSG participated in 49 of 77 oral arguments (64%), so the fact that the OSG is arguing in 9 of 12 cases during the October sitting (75%), is not terribly unusual. That said, I think a lot of readers would be surprised to see that such frequent participation from that office is the norm.