Josh Patashnik 

Joshua Patashnik is a deputy solicitor general who practices appellate litigation for the California Department of Justice.

He joined the department in 2018 after working at Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP for five years, clerking at the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and then for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy at the U.S. Supreme Court. He obtained his JD from Stanford Law School and spent a prior year as a writer for The New Republic magazine.

“I’ve always loved writing, and I realized I could play a more active role in public affairs and the business world if I became a lawyer,” Patashnik said.

He’s argued four cases before the state Supreme Court. In an upcoming criminal matter, he has briefed an important issue concerning an equal protection challenge to the state’s parole eligibility system for young adults in which those sentenced for serious sex crimes are excluded while first-degree murderers are eligible. People v. Williams, S262229 (Ca. S. Ct., rev. granted July 22, 2020).

“We’re awaiting an oral argument date,” Patashnik said. “The outcome could affect a lot of cases down the road.”

In his first civil case before the state high court, Patashnik was lead counsel and presented the winning oral argument regarding the California Environmental Quality Act and its potential preemption by the Federal Power Act. County of Butte v. Department of Water Resources, S258574 (Ca. S. Ct., op. filed Aug. 1, 2022).

“That was a great win for our client,” he said. “The court agreed with us that CEQA was not preempted.”

Patashnik also represents California’s interests before the 9th Circuit. That led him to a significant role in the closely-watched antitrust case pitting Epic Games against Apple Inc.

In a rare instance of an oral argument by a nonparty friend of the court, he contended that the state’s Unfair Competition Law was a valid basis for a district court injunction prohibiting Apple from enforcing certain terms in its standard contracts with app developers. Epic Games v. Apple Inc., 21-16506, 21-16695 (9th Cir., op. filed Apr. 24, 2023).

The circuit panel ruled for Apple in nine of 10 claims — but agreed with Patashnik’s position on the tenth, upholding the state’s unfair competition claim. As he put it during the argument, state law “is very suspicious of agreements that restrict the free flow of price information.”

Patashnik said he enjoys the job. “It’s exciting, fast-paced and you get to see so many different areas of the law.”

—John Roemer