Is michael dreeben gay

Michael R. Dreeben (born c. ) is a former Deputy Solicitor General who was in charge of the U.S. Department of Justice criminal docket before the United States Supreme Court. [1][2] He is recognized as an expert in U.S. criminal law. 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.

Michael R. Dreeben served as a Deputy Solicitor General from to In that capacity, he oversaw the government’s appellate criminal litigation in the Supreme Court and throughout the United States. He has also twice served as Counselor to Special Counsels in the Department of Justice: first for Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III [ ]. Michael Dreeben '81, former U.S.

Deputy Solicitor General, discusses his life in the law with Dean Kerry Abrams. From through , Michael served in the Office of Solicitor General in the U.S. Department of Justice, first as an Assistant to the Solicitor General and then as a Deputy Solicitor General. As Deputy Solicitor General from to , he supervised the criminal docket for.

michael dreeben politics

Leading the special counsel’s defense each step of the way is Michael Dreeben, a year veteran of the Justice Department widely recognized by both Democrats and Republicans as one of the. She served for 10 years as an Assistant to the Solicitor General in the U. Department of Justice. Anyone who has seen Michael argue a case knows how good he is. Michael worked relentlessly, writing recommendations, giving advice, editing briefs and arguing cases.

He edited briefs in opposition while sitting at counsel table waiting for arguments to start, and while on a spin bike at the gym. So most of the time, Michael was all business. But once in a while …. McNeely , No. That was the case about whether the police could take a blood sample from a drunk driver without a warrant, and the Supreme Court said no. That case is not to be confused with Mitchell v.

Wisconsin , No. Anyway, as part of the brief, we had a section addressing whether a blood draw is a significant Fourth Amendment intrusion. We decided to give examples of when people have their blood drawn in everyday life, to show that it is a relatively common procedure. The brief read:. Although a blood test involves a bodily intrusion, this Court has characterized it as minimal and commonplace.

Blood tests are routinely performed during annual physical examinations, or to obtain a marriage license or enter the armed forces. It took me a minute to realize that Michael was a making a joke. Let me give you another example. Harris , No. Jardines , No. The cases were argued on the same day, and we won one Harris and lost the other Jardines.

The day after the loss, I came into the office and saw a poster up on my door, apparently advertising a forthcoming protest at the Supreme Court. It read:. Please join us for a rally on the Supreme Court plaza to protest Florida v. The poster had a full-color picture of Franky, the dog whose work was at issue in Jardines. Some of you may be familiar with Bond v. United States , No. He asked Michael:.

It was a bottle of vinegar, labeled as follows:. The label had a color picture of a goldfish swimming in a bowl, which was a nice touch. It was very funny, and its source was clear — definitely Michael. Deputy Solicitor General Michael R.