Is michael dreeben gay

Home / celebrities people / Is michael dreeben gay

He was Michael Dreeben’s immediate predecessor as deputy solicitor general for criminal cases at the Department of Justice.

Thousands of lawyers have cycled through the Department of Justice over the years. That challenging task could not have been in better hands.

Michael’s skill as an advocate has been widely recognized and reported on.

United States (2018), he contended that no warrant was required for historical cell-site location data under the Fourth Amendment, but the Court rejected the view in a 5-4 ruling mandating warrants for such records. United States (2017), securing a 6-2 affirmance on the scope of Brady disclosure obligations in a capital murder prosecution involving withheld witness agreements.

In August, Dreeben took on a teaching position at Georgetown University Law Center, which he will retain in private practice.

…

Hacker said hiring Dreeben does not necessarily signal a growing of O’Melveny’s appellate team, in keeping with the firm’s preference for keeping the appellate practice small. Halper, a Medicare fraud case.[14] On April 27, 2016, Dreeben delivered his 100th oral argument, becoming the first attorney to reach that milestone in Supreme Court history.[12]Dreeben's advocacy contributed to significant outcomes in high-stakes criminal matters, including a 6-2 affirmance in Turner v.

And to do that with credibility requires intelligence, experience in the field and often a huge investment of time and effort (as well as no small measure of diplomacy), all of which Michael Dreeben brought to the table in abundant supply.

The easiest course when being pressed by a strong-willed U.S. Attorney is to just go along and let the courts say “no.” But Michael appreciated both the critical importance of maintaining the department’s credibility before the courts and the fact that the department is not just another litigant, but has an overriding responsibility to be, and to be perceived as being, fair and dispassionate.

Justice Robert Jackson, when he was the attorney general, gave a speech entitled “The Federal Prosecutor,” which is perhaps the best statement ever made about the higher responsibilities of prosecutors.

In his April 25, 2024, oral argument before the Supreme Court in Trump v. Windsor (2013), where he supported the government's non-defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, contributing to its invalidation on equal protection grounds, and various challenges to federal statutes on issues like honest-services fraud and cross-burning ordinances.

Alito specifically pressed Dreeben on scenarios such as a president orchestrating a military coup or assassinating a political rival with Justice Department acquiescence, to which Dreeben responded that such conduct could remain prosecutable absent explicit immunity, a concession conservatives decried as eroding constitutional safeguards for the presidency.[47][48] Critics from outlets like the American Enterprise Institute argued this position reflected an institutional DOJ preference for prosecutorial discretion over robust executive protections, potentially enabling future administrations to criminalize policy disagreements.[49]

Publications and Influence

[Publications and Influence - no content]

Michael Dreeben, a veteran U.S.

Supreme Court advocate with 105 oral arguments under his belt, will join O’Melveny & Myers in January as a partner in its appellate and white-collar practices, the firm announced Tuesday.

The longtime deputy U.S. solicitor general, widely viewed as an unrivaled expert on criminal law, retired in July after a two-year detour assisting special counsel Robert Mueller in the investigation into Russia’s election interference.

United States, a case concerning the forfeiture of untainted assets to secure criminal restitution; Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged the milestone during proceedings, noting Dreeben as only the second advocate to achieve it. Many of them have been quite capable and have made significant contributions. Michael Dreeben is one of those few.

As the deputy solicitor general for criminal cases for the past quarter century, Michael has played a critical role in formulating legal policy for the criminal side of the department and in leading the department’s presentation of its criminal cases both in the Supreme Court and in the lower federal courts.

The Mueller probe, which conservatives including Trump labeled a "witch hunt" lacking evidence of collusion with Russia, featured a prosecution team where 14 of 17 publicly identified attorneys were registered Democrats or had donated predominantly to Democratic causes, fueling allegations of systemic bias within the Justice Department.[44] Dreeben's expertise from over two decades in the Solicitor General's Office was seen by critics as repurposed to advance obstruction charges against Trump, despite his prior nonpartisan service under both Republican and Democratic administrations.[45]Dreeben's enlistment by Special CounselJack Smith in December 2023 to assist in federal prosecutions of Trump over January 6, 2021, events and classified documents retention elicited similar rebukes from conservative quarters, who viewed it as evidence of entrenched bureaucratic opposition to Trump's political resurgence.

31, 2019, 12:00 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/07/tribute-to-michael-dreeben-a-gifted-advocate-and-a-principled-man/

Michael Dreeben

Michael R. Dreeben is an American appellate lawyer renowned for arguing 105 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court during his 31-year tenure in the Department of Justice's Office of the Solicitor General from 1988 to 2019.[1][2]As Assistant to the Solicitor General starting in 1988 and later as Deputy Solicitor General from 1995 to 2017, Dreeben oversaw the DOJ's criminal docket, handling a broad spectrum of substantive criminal law and procedure matters that shaped federal jurisprudence.[2][3] In 2017, he joined Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and related obstruction issues, leveraging his expertise in complex federal prosecutions.[2] Following his DOJ departure in 2019, Dreeben transitioned to private practice as a partner at O'Melveny & Myers, co-chairing its white-collar defense and corporate investigations practice, while serving as a distinguished lecturer in government at Georgetown University Law Center.[2][1] He holds a J.D.

from Duke University School of Law (1981) and has taught appellate advocacy at institutions including Harvard Law School and Duke.[4][5] Dreeben's career is marked by bipartisan acclaim for his principled advocacy and mastery of Supreme Court practice, including recent arguments as counsel to a special counsel in cases like Trump v.

is michael dreeben gay

But at any given time, there are only a few — very few — who stand out as the widely recognized pillars that hold the place together by virtue of their experience and the esteem in which they are held. Fitzgerald (1982), noting that criminal stakes demand narrower protections, with safeguards including evidentiary rules limiting the use of official-act evidence to prove intent or knowledge (not culpability), jury instructions, statutory construction presumptions, and reliance on legal advice to avoid chilling executive functions.[33]Throughout his career in the Office of the Solicitor General (1988–2019), Dreeben defended robust executive authority in over 100 Supreme Court arguments, including assertions of prosecutorial discretion and national security powers, but consistently prioritized accountability mechanisms over absolute shields from criminal law.

United States, the case examining the scope of presidential immunity from criminal liability for official acts.[32][33] He argued that the Constitution provides no blanket immunity for former presidents, asserting that any such protection would need to be explicitly created by the Court rather than inferred from separation of powers principles, and emphasized that the indictment focused on unofficial or private conduct, such as pressuring state officials and organizing alternate electors.[33][34] During the hearing, Dreeben distinguished permissible official actions—like Cabinet appointments—from the charged conduct involving interference with electioncertification, clarifying that the prosecution did not seek to criminalize core executive functions.[35]Dreeben's role leveraged his prior record of over 100 Supreme Court arguments, including during his tenure as deputy solicitor general, to counter Trump's broad immunity assertions that, if accepted, could shield a range of alleged election-related actions from judicial scrutiny.[29][32] Following the Supreme Court's July 1, 2024, ruling granting absolute immunity for core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for other official acts—while remanding for further proceedings—Dreeben continued advising on the case's application to the indictment, though the charges were ultimately dismissed without prejudice on November 25, 2024, after Trump's reelection, citing Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president.[36]

Post-Government Professional Activities

Transition to Private Practice

After concluding his 31-year tenure at the U.S.

Department of Justice in June 2019, Michael Dreeben transitioned to private practice by joining O'Melveny & Myers LLP as a partner in December 2019.[2][37] This marked his first firm position following three decades primarily in government appellate roles, where he had argued over 100 cases before the Supreme Court.[2][38]At O'Melveny, Dreeben contributed to the firm's appellate and Supreme Court practice, white collar defense, corporate investigations, and emerging areas such as cybersecurity and data privacy, leveraging his extensive experience in high-stakes litigation.[2] He continued advocating before the Supreme Court on behalf of private clients, delivering his 106th argument in November 2021 in a case involving federal sentencing guidelines.[39] This shift allowed Dreeben to apply his government-honed expertise in a for-profit environment, though he maintained selective public sector engagements, including academic roles.[40]

Academic Teaching and Scholarship

Following his retirement from the Department of Justice in June 2019, Dreeben joined Georgetown University Law Center as a Distinguished Lecturer in Government for the 2019-2020 academic year, a role he retained alongside his subsequent private practice commitments.[16][2] Prior to this, he had served as an adjunct professor at Georgetown Law, teaching advanced legal courses informed by his appellate experience.[1] He also held a visiting professorship at Duke University School of Law, where he instructed students in appellate advocacy and conducted seminars on Supreme Court litigation strategy.[41] These teaching roles emphasized practical skills in high-stakes federal appeals, drawing directly from his record of over 100 oral arguments before the U.S.

Supreme Court on behalf of the government.[1]Dreeben's scholarly output, while not voluminous given his primary focus on government service and advocacy, includes early academic work on labor law. Outcomes varied, with successes in affirming prosecutorial practices but losses in privacy and due process expansions, underscoring the Court's evolving jurisprudence during his service.

Involvement in Special Counsel Investigations

Detail to Robert Mueller's Team

In June 2017, shortly after Robert Mueller's appointment as special counsel on May 17, Michael Dreeben took a leave from his position as deputy solicitor general at the Department of Justice to join Mueller's team investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.[16][17] As an appellate specialist with over 100 arguments before the Supreme Court, Dreeben served primarily as a counselor, providing expertise on legal strategy, constitutional issues, and defenses against challenges to the special counsel's authority.[18][19]Dreeben's contributions focused on appellate and procedural matters, including fending off motions questioning Mueller's scope.

After noting that the prosecutor “has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America,” and urging a “rededication to the spirit of fair play and decency that should animate the federal prosecutor,” Jackson concluded his address by saying, “A sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.” Jackson would have been proud of Michael Dreeben, who embodied those ideals as well as anyone I have ever worked with.

Recommended Citation: William Bryson, Tribute to Michael Dreeben: A gifted advocate and a principled man, SCOTUSblog (Jul.

United States, representing Special CounselJack Smith, Dreeben asserted that "this Court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official," including the president, and warned that granting it would immunize former presidents from prosecution for crimes such as bribery, treason, sedition, or murder committed under color of official authority.[33] He argued that the Framers deliberately rejected monarchical immunity, designing the Constitution to ensure no one is above the law, with impeachment serving as a political precondition for potential criminal accountability rather than a bar to prosecution post-tenure.[33]Dreeben distinguished between unofficial acts, which face no immunity and are fully prosecutable (e.g., private efforts to organize fraudulent electors), and official acts, proposing a case-by-case analysis rather than blanket protection.

For non-exclusive official acts, he maintained that criminal liability applies if they violate the law, such as through bribery or corruption, while conceding presumptive immunity for core Article II functions like issuing pardons, vetoing legislation, or exercising removal power, provided they are not tainted by private gain.[33] He differentiated this from civil immunity under precedents like Nixon v.

In Carpenter v. His arguments before the Supreme Court — well over 100 of them — would be models for others to emulate, except that they were the products of skills that few others have and a level of preparation that even fewer are willing to match.