From 1998 to 2002, Srinivasan was in private practice as anassociate at the law firm O'Melveny & Myers. He then returned to the Office of the Solicitor General, where he worked from 2002 until 2007. He rejoined O'Melveny & Myers in 2007 as a partner, and was the firm's hiring partner for itsWashington, D.C. office.[9] While at the firm, he representedExxonMobil foraccusations of human rights abuses by hired military personnel at an Indonesian gas plant.[10] In 2010, he represented former Enron executiveJeffrey Skilling inhis appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court, which challenged the"honest services" fraud statute and also that Skilling's trial was never moved fromHouston.[11] The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Skilling on the "honest services fraud" statute, but rejected the trial location argument.[12]
On August 26, 2011, Srinivasan was appointed to replaceNeal Katyal as Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States.[2] As of May 2013, Srinivasan had argued 25 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Earlier in his career, he also performedpro bono work for presidential candidateAl Gore during the aftermath of the2000 presidential election.[14]
In 2013, he was part of the legal team that presented arguments before the Supreme Court against theDefense of Marriage Act in the case ofUnited States v. Windsor.[15] He left the Solicitor General's office on May 24, 2013, when he was commissioned as a federal judge.
In March 2010,National Review bloggerEdward Whelan wrote that the Obama administration had been considering nominating Srinivasan to one of two vacancies on theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and that the idea of nominating Srinivasan had run into opposition from some Obama supporters because of Srinivasan's work in the U.S. Solicitor General's office during the Bush administration, and union animosity to Srinivasan's corporate clients in private practice.[16]
In June 2012, Obama nominated Srinivasan to the seat on the D.C. Circuit.[17] On January 2, 2013, his nomination was returned to the President, due to thesine die adjournment of the Senate; the next day he was renominated to the same office.[18]
His Senate confirmation hearing on April 10, 2013 was uneventful.[19] His nomination was reported out of committee on May 16, 2013, by a 18–0 vote.[20] A final vote on his nomination took place on May 23, 2013, where he was confirmed by a 97–0 vote.[6][21][22] He received his commission on May 24, 2013.[1] He took the oath of office before Chief JudgeMerrick Garland in June.[23] At his formal swearing-in ceremony in September, administered by retired Supreme Court justiceSandra Day O'Connor, he took the oath on the Hindu holy bookBhagavad Gita[24] and became the first federal appellate judge ofSouth Asian descent.[25] He became Chief Judge on February 11, 2020.[26]
InSierra Club v. Jewell, 764 F. 3d 1 (2014),[27] Srinivasan authored the majority opinion in the D.C. Circuit's split decision holding that environmental groups seeking to protect the site of the historicBattle of Blair Mountain possessedArticle III standing to challenge the removal of the site from theNational Register of Historic Places in federal court.[28]
Srinivasan authored the D.C. Circuit's decision inPom Wonderful v. FTC, 777 F.3d 478 (2015),[29] which upheldFTC regulations that require health-related advertising claims be supported by clinical studies while simultaneously trimming the number of studies required onFirst Amendment grounds.[30]
InHome Care Association of America v. Weil, 799 F. 3d 1084 (2015),[31] Srinivasan authored the D.C. Circuit's decision reinstating, underChevron deference, regulations that guarantee overtime and minimum wage protection to home health care workers, citing "dramatic transformation" of the home care industry over the past forty years as reason for the change.[32]
Srinivasan authored the D.C. Circuit's decision inHodge v. Talkin, 799 F. 3d 1145 (2015),[33] which upheld a federal law prohibiting demonstrations in theU.S. Supreme Court Building's plaza as justified by the Supreme Court's interest in not giving the appearance of being influenced by public opinion and as consistent withnonpublic forum viewpoint-neutral restrictions, where demonstrations could proceed on nearby public sidewalks.[34]
InJarkesy v. SEC, 803 F. 3d 9 (2015),[35] Srinivasan authored the D.C. Circuit's decision holding that the securities laws under theDodd–Frank Act provide an exclusive avenue for judicial review that plaintiffs may not bypass by filing suit in district court.[36]
Srinivasan authored the D.C. Circuit's decision inSimon v. Republic of Hungary, Slip Op. (2016),[37] holding that Article 27 of theForeign Sovereign Immunities Act merely creates a floor on compensation forHolocaust survivors because the text of the1947 peace treaty between Hungary and the Allies does not bar claims outside of the treaty and because the Allies "lacked the power to eliminate (or waive) the claims of" Hungary's own citizens against their government.[38]
In a July 6, 2021 ruling,The Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc. v. FDA, Srinivasan dissented when the majority overturned the FDA's ban on shocking devices, which the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center uses to torture autistic and disabled students. "The result of the majority's ruling," he wrote, is to "force" the FDA to either "abolish a highly beneficial use" of a device "so it can stamp out a highly risky one," or to "stomach the highly risky use so it can preserve the highly beneficial one."[39][40]
Blassingame v. Trump; In December 2023, Srinivasan authored the D.C. Circuit's unanimous decision inBlassingame v. Trump, holding that former PresidentDonald Trump was not entitled to presidential immunity from civil lawsuits brought by Capitol Police officers and members of Congress over theJanuary 6 United States Capitol attack. Srinivasan distinguished between actions taken as "office-holder" versus "office-seeker," writing that "when a first-term President opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act."[41]
Marin Audubon Society v. FAA, In November 2024, Srinivasan dissented inMarin Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation Administration, in which a 2-1 majority held that theWhite House Council on Environmental Quality lacks authority to issue regulations implementing theNational Environmental Policy Act. The majority opinion, written by Senior JudgeA. Raymond Randolph, struck down nearly five decades of CEQ NEPA regulations. Srinivasan's dissent noted that neither party had raised the issue, arguing the court erred both in its conclusion and in its remedy of vacating the regulations. In February 2025, the full court declined to rehear the case, but Srinivasan wrote a statement joined by six other judges suggesting the ruling on CEQ's authority may not be treated as binding precedent.[42][43]
Following the death of Supreme Court JusticeAntonin Scalia on February 13, 2016, Srinivasan was again widely speculated to be among the most likely contenders to be appointed to fill the seat, prior to the nomination ofMerrick Garland.[47][48] After Senate Majority LeaderMitch McConnell threatened to refuse to consider any Obama appointee to fill the seat in an election year, and split political parties in government, it was thought that Srinivasan, who was confirmed 97–0 in 2013, would be politically difficult to block, had he been nominated.[49][50]
