In 2012, I listed all of the ways the Chief Justice has thanked Court-Appointed Amici (going back to 1995). Here is an update through the end of this term

 

Mata v. Lynch (2015) – Will Peterson

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you. Mr. Peterson, this Court appointed you to brief and argue this case as an amicus curiae in support of the judgment below. You have ably discharged that responsibility, for which we are grateful.

Here is coverage for Will’s argument at NLJ. This is also the first case before the Court with Lynch as AG.

 

United States v. Windsor (2013) – Vicki C. Jackson

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Ms. Jackson, before you sit down, I would like to note that you briefed and argued this case as amicus curiae at the invitation of the Court, and you have ably discharged the responsibility, for which you have the gratitude of the Court.

MS. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you.

I think this is the first time an advocate said “Thank you” back to the Chief, and the Chief replied “Thank you.”

 

Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center (2012) – John C. Manning

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel. Mr. Manning, you argued and briefed this case as an amicus curiae at the invitation of the Court, and you have ably discharged your responsibility, for which the Court is grateful.
The case is submitted.

 

NFIB v. Sebllius (2012) – H. Bartow Farr, III

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS:  Mr. Farr, you were invited by this Court to brief and argue in these cases in support of the decision below on severability. You have ably carried out responsibility for which we are grateful.

 

Dorsey v. United States (2012) – Miguel A. Estrada

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Mr. Estrada, at the invitation of the Court, you have briefed and argued this case as an amicus curiae in support of the judgment below. You’ve ably discharged that responsibility, for which the Court is grateful.
The case is submitted.

 

Florida v. HHS (2012)  – Robert Long

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Clement. And thank you, General Verrilli, Mr. Kneedler, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Katsas, and in particular, of course, Mr. Long and Mr. Farr.

Long spoke on a panel about his argument.

 

HHS v. Florida (Anti-Injunction) (2012)- Mr. Robert Long

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Mr. Long, you were invited by this Court to defend the proposition that the Anti-Injunction Act barred this litigation. You have ably carried out that responsibility, for which the Court is grateful.

 

And in his opinion, CJ Roberts thanked amici (among other things):

Because no party supports the Elev- enth Circuit’s holding that the individual mandate can be completely severed from the remainder of the Affordable Care Act, we appointed an amicus curiae to defend that aspect of the judgment below. And because there is a reasonable argument that the Anti-Injunction Act de- prives us of jurisdiction to hear challenges to the individ- ual mandate, but no party supports that proposition, we appointed an amicus curiae to advance it.2

2 We appointed H. Bartow Farr III to brief and argue in support of the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment with respect to severability, and Robert A. Long to brief and argue the proposition that the Anti-Injunction Act bars the current challenges to the individual mandate. 565 U. S. ___ (2011). Both amici have ably discharged their assigned responsibilities.

 

Tapia v. United States (2011) – Stephanos Bibas

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel. Mr. Bibas, you were appointed by this Court to brief and argue this case. You have ably carried out that responsibility, for which the Court is grateful.

 

Bond v. United States (2011) – Stephen R.  McAlliser:

Mr. McAllister, this Court appointed you to brief and argue the case in support of the judgment below, you have ably discharged that responsibility for which we are grateful.

 

Setser v. United States (2011) – Evan A. Young:

No Thank You offered.

The Texas Lawyer has a profile on Young.

 

Pepper v. United States (2010) – Adam G. Ciongoli

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel. Mr. Ciongoli, you have briefed and argued this case as amicus curiae in support of the judgment belowat the invitation of the court and have ably discharged your responsibility.

 

Kucana v. Holder (2009) – Amanda C. Leiter

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Ms. Leiter, you briefed and argued this case in support of the judgment below, at the invitation of the Court, and have ably discharged that responsibility, for which we are grateful.

 

Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick (2009)- Deborah Jones Merritt:

Ms. Merritt, you were appointed by this Court as an amicus to defend the judgment below, and you have ably discharged that responsibility.

 

Irizarry v. United States (2008) – Peter B. Rutledge

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Mr. Rutledge, you briefed and argued the case as amicus curiaein support of the judgment below upon appointment by this Court, and we thank you for undertaking and discharging that assignment.

 

Greenlaw v. United States (2008) – Jay T. Jorgensen:

Mr. Jorgensen, you have briefed and argued this case as an amicus curiae in support of thejudgment below on appointment by the Court. We thank you for undertaking and discharging that assignment.

 

Clay v. United States (2002) – David W. De Bruin

No love from CJ Rehnquist!

 

Great-West Life & Annuity v. Kundson (2001) – Richard G. Taranto:

Again, no thanks from CJ Rehnquist

 

Ornelas v. United States (1996) – Peter Isakoff

No thanks from the Chief!

 

Gutierrez De Martinez v. Lamagno (1995) – Michael E. Kellogg

No thanks from the Chief.