This study examined whether particular solicitors general affect the types of issues the Government enters and whether the direction of this participation varies according to who occupies that office. Each case in which one of the three solicitors general participated as an amicus curiae during the 1976-79 Court terms was examined. Cases resulting in written opinions were divided into the categories of personal liberties, civil equality, and criminal rights. Bork participated as amicus curiae in a disproportionately high number of criminal rights cases when compared with either Griswold or McCree. In contrast, Griswold and McCree filed a majority of their briefs in cases with civil equalities issues. Generally, Griswold and McCree advocated pro-rights positions more frequently than Bork. This general difference can be explained by substantial variation among the solicitors in their pursuit of civil equalities and by more dramatic distinctions in cases involving criminal rights. Bork, for example, never advocated a pro criminal rights decision in an amicus curiae brief. Findings indicate that a substantial change in public policy may occur at a level where there is little public scrutiny. Fifty-nine footnotes are listed.