Biography
Theodore Bevry Olson was born September 11, 1940 in Chicago. He earned his undergraduate degree from the University of the Pacific and his law degree from UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall. He joined Gibson Dunn & Crutcher in 1965 and has been a partner there for over 50 years, interrupted only by government service. He argued Morrison v. Olson before the Supreme Court (1988), where the court upheld the independent counsel statute. He served as US Solicitor General from 2001 to 2004 under President George W. Bush — arguing before the Supreme Court on behalf of the United States in the government's most important cases.
His defining moment came in December 2000, when he argued Bush v. Gore before the Supreme Court. The decision halted the Florida recount and effectively decided the presidential election in Bush's favor. Olson was widely credited as a decisive factor in the case. Then, in 2009, he did something that stunned the legal and political world: he agreed to co-counsel with David Boies — his adversary in Bush v. Gore — to challenge California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. The case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, resulted in a ruling striking down Proposition 8. Olson, a conservative Republican who had served in the Reagan and Bush administrations, argued that same-sex marriage is a fundamental constitutional right — and won. The pairing of Olson and Boies — liberal and conservative, united by principle — became a landmark moment in American legal history.
Core Philosophy
Principle before politics. Olson's decision to argue for same-sex marriage after Bush v. Gore was not a political flip — it was a principled application of constitutional liberty. He has consistently argued that the Constitution's guarantees of liberty and equal protection apply regardless of which political coalition benefits. "A conservative who believes in the Constitution's promise of liberty for all cannot oppose the right to marry." This intellectual consistency — applying the same constitutional framework to cases that benefit different political coalitions — is what distinguishes a legal philosopher from a partisan advocate.
The Supreme Court argument is a conversation, not a lecture. Olson has argued before the Supreme Court over 60 times. His approach is conversational: know your record so deeply that any question from any justice can be answered without hesitation; identify the key justices whose concerns you must address; and listen as much as speak. He has said the most important skill in Supreme Court advocacy is "knowing which question the justices are really asking underneath the question they ask."
Famous Quotes
"A conservative who believes in the Constitution's promise of liberty and equal protection cannot oppose the right to marry."— Ted Olson, on arguing for same-sex marriage
"The Supreme Court is not a political body — and the moment we treat it as one, we damage something that cannot be easily repaired."— Ted Olson
"Know every page of the record. The justice who asks you the question you cannot answer has already written your opponent's brief."— Ted Olson, on appellate preparation
Notable Achievements
- Argued before the US Supreme Court 60+ times — one of the most experienced advocates of his era
- Successfully argued Bush v. Gore (2000) — effectively deciding the US presidential election
- Co-argued Perry v. Schwarzenegger (2010) with David Boies — overturned California's Proposition 8
- US Solicitor General under President George W. Bush (2001–2004)
- Senior litigation partner at Gibson Dunn for 50+ years
- His wife Barbara Olson died in the September 11 attacks on American Airlines Flight 77; he continued his government service
- National Law Journal Hall of Fame inductee
- Chambers USA Band 1 ranking in Supreme Court and appellate advocacy
Lessons for the CLO Suite
Olson's reputation is built on applying the same constitutional framework regardless of which coalition benefits. Lawyers who are seen as mercenaries lose credibility with courts over time.
Know every document, every deposition, every regulatory filing. The question you cannot answer is the one the other side will use to define you.
Olson and Boies arguing together was more persuasive than either alone, because it signaled that the case transcended politics. Cross-ideological coalitions are powerful in legal and regulatory contexts.
Olson lost his wife on September 11 and continued serving as Solicitor General. Resilience under personal catastrophe is a mark of character that courts and clients alike recognize.