Noel Francisco.

The U.S. Supreme Court's fall term begins on Oct. 2 . Noel Francisco, newly confirmed as U.S. solicitor general, has just days to prepare.

Of course, it's likely Francisco, formerly a top appellate lawyer at Jones Day, hasn't been thinking about the cases and issues that the justices will confront and he will argue this term. Francisco had been sidelined since his nomination serving not as acting solicitor general but rather as senior advisor to the associate attorney general. Former Sullivan & Cromwell partner Jeffrey Wall had led the SG's office on briefing in the high court.

At his confirmation hearing in May, a day after President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, Francisco pledged independence and candor. Francisco, confirmed Tuesday by a vote of 50-47, becomes the first Senate-confirmed solicitor general of Asian-American heritage. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Francisco will be a central figure in our commitment to the classical understanding of law and jurisprudence.

Francisco was part of a wave of Jones Day lawyers who joined the Trump administration in the early days. Several top Justice Department lawyers including Chad Readler in the civil division and Hashim Mooppan, also in civil were also a part of that defection. Jones Day's Eric Dreiband is the pending nominee for DOJ's civil rights division.

Jones Day publicly touted Francisco's confirmation. Jones Day has a long history of having its lawyers serve the Nation in important public service positions. We are very proud of Noel and his appointment to serve as Solicitor General, Stephen Brogan, managing partner of Jones Day, said in a statement. Noel is a proven, effective advocate in the courtroom, as well as a person of great integrity. I am confident that he will serve with distinction as Solicitor General.

Here's a snapshot of things to know about Francisco and matters on his plate as he prepares to step up to the lectern at the high court.

'Focus on the Florist, on the Baker'

Francisco's taking over an office that hasn't been without tension in the Trump era.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions overcame opposition to the Justice Department's participation in support of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The government filed a friend-of-the-court brief this month in support of the baker, Jack Phillips that said the First Amendment trumps the Colorado anti-discrimination law that's at the heart of the case. Writing on Twitter, former Obama-era Justice Department lawyer Marty Lederman said the amicus brief marked the first time the Justice Department had supported a constitutional exemption to anti-discrimination law. None of the career deputy SG's in the office signed the brief. DOJ officials disputed there was any conflict over the filing of the government's brief.

Francisco wasn't on the brief himself Wall's name appeared as acting solicitor. But Francisco has talked about sympathetic plaintiffs in the mold of Phillips, who is represented by the conservative group Alliance Defending Freedom. During his confirmation proceedings, senators questioned Francisco in writing about a Heritage Foundation speech in which he advocated the need for challengers to the Affordable Care Act to build powerful cases with sympathetic plaintiffs. He noted key plaintiffs to Obamacare included a group of nuns, Catholic Charities and inner city Catholic schools. (Francisco earlier argued on behalf of Roman Catholic bishops, dioceses and schools in Zubik v. Burwell, in which he challenged the contraceptive insurance requirement in the Affordable Care Act.)

On marriage, Francisco said in the Heritage speech, [we] need to do the same. Focus on the florist, on the baker, the sincere small businessmen under attack. Francisco, responding in writing to a question from senators, said that lawyers who are building cases should attempt to present both legally and factually persuasive cases.

Switched Up at the High Court

The Justice Department has switched positions in several key cases in the high court but Francisco has vowed not to make a habit of it.

Although there are times when it is appropriate for the United States to change litigating positions, I believe that, if the United States changes positions too often and without a sound basis for doing so, then there is a risk of undermining credibility with the courts, Francisco told senators in a written response to U.S. during his confirmation proceedings. Francisco said it would be appropriate for the U.S. to change its position when the underlying policy at issue has changed. Switching the position of the U.S., he said, should be done infrequently in order to foster continuity.

A Federalist Society Friend

Francisco has been a frequent speaker on panels and podcasts of the conservative lawyers' organization. On a panel last November about enforcing the Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, he revealed his own gun experiences. I have fired a firearm three times in my life. One was when I was in college and I was a reenactment civil war soldier where we were literally firing blanks. The second time was when I went skeet shooting during law school law school and I can assure you I hit nothing but air, and the third time was when I was about 12 years old and we had BB guns and I shot a bird and I winged it the first time and so I had to put it out of its misery and it was one of the most miserable experiences of my life.

Nonetheless, he added, the Second Amendment in addition to setting forth a right in and of itself is a structural constraint on the exercise of governmental power much in the way separation-of-powers principles are.

Asked in writing during confirmation proceedings whether he agrees with the Federalist Society's views, Francisco told Senators: I am not in a position to speak to any specific views espoused by the Federalist Society. He noted that he has also participated in events hosted by the liberal counterweight American Constitution Society. He also told Senators that his personal policy and political views would be irrelevant; the decisions of the Solicitor General must reflect the long-term interests of the United States.

Recusal Questions

There's a pending lawsuit in Washington against the Justice Department that seeks public records about Francisco's decision to recuse and then rejoin litigation over the Trump administration's travel ban. Francisco was acting solicitor general at the time when he stepped aside. Francisco is recused in the dispute over the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's single-director structure a case that is almost assured to reach the Supreme Court in the next year. The U.S. Justice Department in March switched positions in a CFPB case that is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Wall, the acting SG, said in a letter to Congress that the department had concluded the for-cause removal provision is unconstitutional and that the president should have the power to remove the agency's director at will.

No Part in Comey Firing

Francisco told the U.S. Senate he played no role in the president's decision to fire FBI Director James Comey on May 9. I played no role in the decision to dismiss Director Comey. To the best of my recollection I learned of this possibility on the afternoon of May 9 from a staff member of the Deputy Attorney General's Office. I was not informed of the reasons for the decision.

But Francisco could play a role in resolving any attorney-client privilege issues or subpoena disputes that rise up in the appellate courts as Special Counsel Robert Mueller III investigates Russia's meddling in the presidential election. And then there are the disputes about whether and how the Constitution's check on foreign influence the emoluments clause might apply to Trump's presidency and his international and domestic business interests. Francisco told senators that the resolution of any such dispute should it reach the solicitor general's office will turn on the facts and circumstances of the particular matter. He didn't go into any further detail.

An Apology to Justice Ginsburg

Francisco was in full swing in his argument last year on behalf of former Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg posed a question. Francisco, in response, addressed Ginsburg as Justice O'Connor. That hasn't happened in quite some time, said Ginsburg to the abashed Francisco. The lawyer offered up: Justice Ginsburg, I am very, very, very sorry. Justice Ginsburg, my apologies. During his argument, Francisco defined official action, saying an official must either make a government decision or urge someone else to do so. The line is between access to decision makers on the one hand and trying to influence those decisions on the other. So in our case, we went on to say merely arranging a meeting, attending an event, hosting a reception, or making a speech are not standing alone 'official acts.'

Tony Mauro contributed reporting from Washington.

Related Articles:

• Noel Francisco, Trump's SG Nominee, Reveals Divestiture Plan in Ethics Pledge

• Justice Department, Divided Internally, Backed Colorado Baker Over Gay Couple

• Solicitor General's Office Fills Ranks With Big Law Hires

• Jones Day Lawyers in Trump Administration Get Pass to Work With Former Colleagues

• Solicitor General Nominee Pledges 'Independence and Candor'

Marcia Coyle, based in Washington, covers the U.S. Supreme Court. Contact her at mcoyle@alm.com. On Twitter: @MarciaCoyle. Mike Scarcella can be contacted at mscarcella@alm.com. On Twitter: @MikeScarcella.