Obama's Supreme Court lawyer ends 'intense' tenure

WASHINGTON — The power struggle that has played out over the past five years between the Obama administration and the Supreme Court is about to lose its central player.

Even as the high court prepares to issue major rulings on abortion, immigration and affirmative action, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli — the president's Supreme Court advocate — is relinquishing the lectern to his deputy, Ian Gershengorn. By Monday, when the justices may deliver the term's final verdicts, he will be jetting to Italy for a three-week vacation.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli departing after historic run at Supreme Court

Verrilli's tenure has been remarkable for its rapid-fire succession of historic cases, from Obamacare and immigration to voting rights and same-sex marriage, that pitted a progressive Democratic administration against a court dominated by the nominees of Republican presidents. Through it all, the 58-year-old appellate lawyer had to represent his client without repelling the court.

"This is a progressive administration that wanted to use the power that we believe ... the Constitution gives the federal government to address the great problems confronting the nation," Verrilli said during an exit interview in his Justice Department office. "Those actions were being evaluated by a court whose majority probably started out with a degree of skepticism."

Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide

Not since President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tangled with the high court over the New Deal in the 1930s has the docket been so power-packed or oral arguments so intense. Verrilli, who has served in the job longer than any predecessor in 43 years, has won slightly more than half of the most significant cases.

At Supreme Court, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli won big and lost big

"It's been a remarkable stretch," he said. "I can't think of a time since the 1930s when the role of the court in the life of the nation and in the unfolding of the political process has been as central as it's been in the last five years."

And while FDR's battles with the justices were more "intense," Verrilli said, "We haven't exactly seen eye to eye now on everything."

That would include four cases involving Obama's signature health care law — two in which the court upheld the statute against potentially fatal challenges, and two in which it overturned or questioned regulations requiring that religious objectors offer insurance coverage for contraceptives.

Other battles over federal power, or the president's authority over Congress, dealt with immigration policy, environmental regulation and executive branch appointments.

"As a result of ... what everybody would agree is a fair level of dysfunction in the legislative process, the executive branch has had to decide how it's going to use executive power in order to try to protect and advance the country's interests," Verrilli said. "That's created conflict."

Despite their differences, Verrilli gives high marks to Chief Justice John Roberts, who he called "a fair-minded jurist." Roberts has been criticized by both liberals and conservatives for his rulings, which range from weakening the Voting Rights Act to upholding the Affordable Care Act.

"He cares about the place of the institution in our constitutional structure," Verrilli said. "He cares deeply about maintaining the integrity of the court and the integrity of the judiciary as a vital part of our democratic system."

That hasn't always been easy with a court now evenly divided between conservative and liberal justices in the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia's death in February. It was Scalia who in 1986 helped create what is known as a "hot bench" — one that questions lawyers unsparingly, often within seconds of their opening remarks.

Without Scalia, "certainly oral argument has been a little different," Verrilli said. But the lawyers representing the government continue to prepare for an eight-member bench the same way — for instance, by assuming their initial statements should last no longer than 45 seconds.

"That," Verrilli said, "tends to be the most time you get before somebody jumps into a question."