Alumnus (’23) and Law Journal Editor-in-Chief Emeritus (Vol. XVI) Chauncey Graham, Esq., recently contributed to the drafting of an amicus brief in support of Respondents in Chiles v. Salazar , No. 24–539, 607 U.S. ___ (March 31, 2026), argued before the United States Supreme Court last Fall. See https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/chiles-v-salazar/. Although the Court’s majority ruled against the Respondents 8-1, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson cited the Amicus Brief of Health Law Scholars in her vigorous, spirited, and thorough dissent (which was 35 pages long in comparison to Justice Gorsuch’s 23-page opinion for the majority). See p. 27 of Justice Jackson’s dissenting opinion. This acknowledgment underscores the tangible impact of precise legal writing and rigorous analysis on the Court’s consideration of complex statutory and constitutional questions.
For Chauncey, the experience has been a meaningful opportunity to help shape legal conversations and scholarship at the highest level of the judiciary.
In his current role as Legislative Counsel for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Chauncey focuses on developing and advancing civil rights policy initiatives at all levels of government and navigating evolving regulatory frameworks. His work on the amicus brief reflects the intersection of legislative and appellate advocacy, where careful statutory interpretation and clear, persuasive writing can influence how courts understand and apply the law. Contributing to a submission that became a part of the Court’s written dialogue reinforces the importance of thoughtful, well-reasoned legal arguments in both policy and litigation contexts.