From SCOTUSblog, principal deputy U.S. Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan and Caitlin Halligan were both nominated by President Obama to fill vacancies in the D.C. Circuit. Halligan was nominated previously, which we covered here. The DC Circuit is generally considered a path to a Supreme Court nomination, as well as handles a fair amount of Indian law cases.

Srinivasan has argued before the Supreme Court more than 20 times. In his job with the SG he represented the federal government in Cherokee Nation v. Leavitt (contract supports case).

As a private attorney with O’Melveny & Myers, he represented the Hawai’ia Congressional Delegation as an amicus in Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs. There the Supreme Court overturned the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision that the state couldn’t sell ceded lands before settling Native Hawaiian claims, based on the Apology Resolution passed by Congress. His brief argued for upholding the Hawaii Supreme Court:

Contrary to the contentions of petitioners and the United States, the Apology Resolution is more than “simply an apology” (Pet. Br. 30) “whose sole effect is a moral one” (U.S. Br. 30). Rather, the Resolution by its terms constitutes an official, definitive recognition and acknowledgment by Congress of the United States’ culpability for the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai’i and of the Native Hawaiians’ unrelinquished claims to their ancestral lands. That acknowledgment differs from other statutes and resolutions that have expressed Congress’ regret for acts that had already been recognized as wrong or unlawful. See U.S. Br. 29-30 (describing resolution apologizing for “slavery and Jim Crow”). The Apology Resolution instead ended a long-running debate over the United States’ actions in Hawai’i over a century ago.³ The Supreme Court of Hawai’i properly relied on those considered findings, and Congress’ express support of the ongoing reconciliation with the Native Hawaiian people, to inform its ruling below.