Sociologically speaking, why are some judges considered more prestigious than others in the same court? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I think what's missing from this thread is the factor of ideology. DC/2/9 are more prestigious if you're targeting a liberal feeder judge. Can anyone name me an appellate liberal feeder judge that isn't on DC/2/9? If there are any, it's an outlier. Most law students are left-learning so it makes sense that DC/2/9 become more prestigious in folklore.

For conservatives, agree that the circuit hardly matters anymore.

If people are going to get into the weeds of circuit prestige, then whether the circuit has feeder judges has to be an important point. And that’s exactly why it’s hilarious to say the 9th is special. There is no conservative feeder and now that Watford is gone there is no liberal feeder. There are no true liberal feeders on any circuit besides DC. The 9th is not more prestigious than other circuits anymore, if it ever even was.

[Anonymous User]

I think what's missing from this thread is the factor of ideology. DC/2/9 are more prestigious if you're targeting a liberal feeder judge. Can anyone name me an appellate liberal feeder judge that isn't on DC/2/9? If there are any, it's an outlier. Most law students are left-learning so it makes sense that DC/2/9 become more prestigious in folklore.

For conservatives, agree that the circuit hardly matters anymore.

If people are going to get into the weeds of circuit prestige, then whether the circuit has feeder judges has to be an important point. And that’s exactly why it’s hilarious to say the 9th is special. There is no conservative feeder and now that Watford is gone there is no liberal feeder. There are no true liberal feeders on any circuit besides DC. The 9th is not more prestigious than other circuits anymore, if it ever even was.

OP of the post you're responding to here.

I'm genuinely surprised by the lack of acknowledgment for the 9th circuit. First of all, I specifically segmented my answer by splitting for ideology. So a circuit doesn't need a conservative/liberal judge to be. prestigious. It just needs multiples of either.

Secondly, here are the current active liberal judges who have fed 2+ clerks on the 9th circuit (to the best of my knowledge, please correct if wrong): Fletcher, Friedland, Berzon, Watford. Yes I know 2 of them are older and 1 is retiring, but there's also a lot of promising feeder judges to take their place. KBJ just hired 3 clerks from the 9th circuit. You don't think there might be some promise there?

Furthermore, speaking of general California, NDCal which feeds into the 9th is also very good. Chhabria and a few others (to a lesser degree) are highly sought after district court judges with a track record of feeding.

Lastly, keep in mind the conservatives are dominating the courts and there are only 3 liberal justices. So obviously in sheer absolute numbers, there will be less feeder opportunities. But in relative numbers, given the above bench of proven and potential judges, I'm willing to bet 9th will continue to historically be as strong as before (if not stronger because of continued polarization).

[Anonymous User]

If Kagan and Sotomayor weren't hiring in large numbers from CA9 before, there's no reason to think that's magically going to start now with newer appointees. KBJ's process also doesn't suggest that she's aiming to rely on specific feeders. Maybe she'll develop a few over time, but who's to say that means CA9 will consistently feed? Fletcher and Berzon aren't really in a position to do that moving forward. Koh's better positioned, but that's one hire as a data point.

The CA9 has undergone a lot of change. It will always be desired for location but the CADC-level prestige argument is getting dated and IMO has been since Fletcher went senior.

[Anonymous User]

If Kagan and Sotomayor weren't hiring in large numbers from CA9 before, there's no reason to think that's magically going to start now with newer appointees. KBJ's process also doesn't suggest that she's aiming to rely on specific feeders. Maybe she'll develop a few over time, but who's to say that means CA9 will consistently feed? Fletcher and Berzon aren't really in a position to do that moving forward. Koh's better positioned, but that's one hire as a data point.

The CA9 has undergone a lot of change. It will always be desired for location but the CADC-level prestige argument is getting dated and IMO has been since Fletcher went senior.

Did people ever argue that 9 is same level to DC? I certainly never thought so. Very clearly DC is number 1. Then there's a gap. Then 2 and 9 are usually pretty equal depending on the year. Then there's a massive gap. People group together DC/2/9 because historically they cover 90%~(?) of all hires, with DC being 50%, 2 and 9 being 20%ish each. These are all ballpark numbers ofc.

Edit: Speaking from a liberal point of view* Again, I agree that circuits don't matter for conservatives.

[Anonymous User]

I think what's missing from this thread is the factor of ideology. DC/2/9 are more prestigious if you're targeting a liberal feeder judge. Can anyone name me an appellate liberal feeder judge that isn't on DC/2/9? If there are any, it's an outlier. Most law students are left-learning so it makes sense that DC/2/9 become more prestigious in folklore.

For conservatives, agree that the circuit hardly matters anymore.

If people are going to get into the weeds of circuit prestige, then whether the circuit has feeder judges has to be an important point. And that’s exactly why it’s hilarious to say the 9th is special. There is no conservative feeder and now that Watford is gone there is no liberal feeder. There are no true liberal feeders on any circuit besides DC. The 9th is not more prestigious than other circuits anymore, if it ever even was.

I don't even think there are any Katsas, Thapar type "liberal" feeders on DCC. Sri isn't really ideological in hiring. Millet maybe? Boasberg definitely but he isn't DCC.

Maybe this goes to the "there aren't real liberal feeders anymore" point, but I feel like the closest you get is Lohier, and then like Barron or Nathans. Or "conservative who hires credentialed liberals" like Bibas or Sutton.

[Anonymous User]

I think what's missing from this thread is the factor of ideology. DC/2/9 are more prestigious if you're targeting a liberal feeder judge. Can anyone name me an appellate liberal feeder judge that isn't on DC/2/9? If there are any, it's an outlier. Most law students are left-learning so it makes sense that DC/2/9 become more prestigious in folklore.

For conservatives, agree that the circuit hardly matters anymore.

If people are going to get into the weeds of circuit prestige, then whether the circuit has feeder judges has to be an important point. And that’s exactly why it’s hilarious to say the 9th is special. There is no conservative feeder and now that Watford is gone there is no liberal feeder. There are no true liberal feeders on any circuit besides DC. The 9th is not more prestigious than other circuits anymore, if it ever even was.

I don't even think there are any Katsas, Thapar type "liberal" feeders on DCC. Sri isn't really ideological in hiring. Millet maybe? Boasberg definitely but he isn't DCC.

Maybe this goes to the "there aren't real liberal feeders anymore" point, but I feel like the closest you get is Lohier, and then like Barron or Nathans. Or "conservative who hires credentialed liberals" like Bibas or Sutton.

I was under the impression Boasberg wasn't very ideological in his hiring either?

[Anonymous User]

I think what's missing from this thread is the factor of ideology. DC/2/9 are more prestigious if you're targeting a liberal feeder judge. Can anyone name me an appellate liberal feeder judge that isn't on DC/2/9? If there are any, it's an outlier. Most law students are left-learning so it makes sense that DC/2/9 become more prestigious in folklore.

For conservatives, agree that the circuit hardly matters anymore.

If people are going to get into the weeds of circuit prestige, then whether the circuit has feeder judges has to be an important point. And that’s exactly why it’s hilarious to say the 9th is special. There is no conservative feeder and now that Watford is gone there is no liberal feeder. There are no true liberal feeders on any circuit besides DC. The 9th is not more prestigious than other circuits anymore, if it ever even was.

OP of the post you're responding to here.

I'm genuinely surprised by the lack of acknowledgment for the 9th circuit. First of all, I specifically segmented my answer by splitting for ideology. So a circuit doesn't need a conservative/liberal judge to be. prestigious. It just needs multiples of either.

Secondly, here are the current active liberal judges who have fed 2+ clerks on the 9th circuit (to the best of my knowledge, please correct if wrong): Fletcher, Friedland, Berzon, Watford. Yes I know 2 of them are older and 1 is retiring, but there's also a lot of promising feeder judges to take their place. KBJ just hired 3 clerks from the 9th circuit. You don't think there might be some promise there?

Furthermore, speaking of general California, NDCal which feeds into the 9th is also very good. Chhabria and a few others (to a lesser degree) are highly sought after district court judges with a track record of feeding.

Lastly, keep in mind the conservatives are dominating the courts and there are only 3 liberal justices. So obviously in sheer absolute numbers, there will be less feeder opportunities. But in relative numbers, given the above bench of proven and potential judges, I'm willing to bet 9th will continue to historically be as strong as before (if not stronger because of continued polarization).

Watford is officially gone. He was the only actual feeder. Sending 2 or 3 clerks to the Court over the course of your entire judgeship doesn’t make you a feeder. KBJ is the only hope but I highly doubt she consistently pulls from the 9th given her application process and background. The 9th is just objectively weak right now. If you make me rank circuits, it’s around middle of the road currently.

[Anonymous User]

I think what's missing from this thread is the factor of ideology. DC/2/9 are more prestigious if you're targeting a liberal feeder judge. Can anyone name me an appellate liberal feeder judge that isn't on DC/2/9? If there are any, it's an outlier. Most law students are left-learning so it makes sense that DC/2/9 become more prestigious in folklore.

For conservatives, agree that the circuit hardly matters anymore.

If people are going to get into the weeds of circuit prestige, then whether the circuit has feeder judges has to be an important point. And that’s exactly why it’s hilarious to say the 9th is special. There is no conservative feeder and now that Watford is gone there is no liberal feeder. There are no true liberal feeders on any circuit besides DC. The 9th is not more prestigious than other circuits anymore, if it ever even was.

OP of the post you're responding to here.

I'm genuinely surprised by the lack of acknowledgment for the 9th circuit. First of all, I specifically segmented my answer by splitting for ideology. So a circuit doesn't need a conservative/liberal judge to be. prestigious. It just needs multiples of either.

Secondly, here are the current active liberal judges who have fed 2+ clerks on the 9th circuit (to the best of my knowledge, please correct if wrong): Fletcher, Friedland, Berzon, Watford. Yes I know 2 of them are older and 1 is retiring, but there's also a lot of promising feeder judges to take their place. KBJ just hired 3 clerks from the 9th circuit. You don't think there might be some promise there?

Furthermore, speaking of general California, NDCal which feeds into the 9th is also very good. Chhabria and a few others (to a lesser degree) are highly sought after district court judges with a track record of feeding.

Lastly, keep in mind the conservatives are dominating the courts and there are only 3 liberal justices. So obviously in sheer absolute numbers, there will be less feeder opportunities. But in relative numbers, given the above bench of proven and potential judges, I'm willing to bet 9th will continue to historically be as strong as before (if not stronger because of continued polarization).

Watford is officially gone. He was the only actual feeder. Sending 2 or 3 clerks to the Court over the course of your entire judgeship doesn’t make you a feeder. KBJ is the only hope but I highly doubt she consistently pulls from the 9th given her application process and background. The 9th is just objectively weak right now. If you make me rank circuits, it’s around middle of the road currently.

Interesting. Please educate us which circuits (besides DC and 2) will produce more SCOTUS LIBERAL clerks than 9 and why you think so. All the evidence I've seen indicates 9 will continue to have a strong role, but I'm open to new information. Again, this is for liberals.

[Anonymous User]

But yet again, sending clerks to SCOTUS doesn’t reflecf on the circuit as a whole; it reflects on a specific judge. The 9th Cir, as a whole, isn’t feeding to SCOTUS. No one says the 6th Cir is magically prestigious just because Thapar feeds from it.

[Anonymous User]

I think what's missing from this thread is the factor of ideology. DC/2/9 are more prestigious if you're targeting a liberal feeder judge. Can anyone name me an appellate liberal feeder judge that isn't on DC/2/9? If there are any, it's an outlier. Most law students are left-learning so it makes sense that DC/2/9 become more prestigious in folklore.

For conservatives, agree that the circuit hardly matters anymore.

If people are going to get into the weeds of circuit prestige, then whether the circuit has feeder judges has to be an important point. And that’s exactly why it’s hilarious to say the 9th is special. There is no conservative feeder and now that Watford is gone there is no liberal feeder. There are no true liberal feeders on any circuit besides DC. The 9th is not more prestigious than other circuits anymore, if it ever even was.

I don't even think there are any Katsas, Thapar type "liberal" feeders on DCC. Sri isn't really ideological in hiring. Millet maybe? Boasberg definitely but he isn't DCC.

Maybe this goes to the "there aren't real liberal feeders anymore" point, but I feel like the closest you get is Lohier, and then like Barron or Nathans. Or "conservative who hires credentialed liberals" like Bibas or Sutton.

I was under the impression Boasberg wasn't very ideological in his hiring either?

It's not as evident as it is for like Thapar, where every clerk has JLPP or FedSoc on their linkedin page, but every Boasberg clerk from my school has some liberal indicator (be it working for a liberal presidential candidate prior to law school, being masthead on the progressive journal, or doing something "progressive" after the clerkship [working as a federal PD, at a left leaning lit boutique, or at a non-profit promoting diversity in the legal profession]).

[Anonymous User]

I think what's missing from this thread is the factor of ideology. DC/2/9 are more prestigious if you're targeting a liberal feeder judge. Can anyone name me an appellate liberal feeder judge that isn't on DC/2/9? If there are any, it's an outlier. Most law students are left-learning so it makes sense that DC/2/9 become more prestigious in folklore.

For conservatives, agree that the circuit hardly matters anymore.

If people are going to get into the weeds of circuit prestige, then whether the circuit has feeder judges has to be an important point. And that’s exactly why it’s hilarious to say the 9th is special. There is no conservative feeder and now that Watford is gone there is no liberal feeder. There are no true liberal feeders on any circuit besides DC. The 9th is not more prestigious than other circuits anymore, if it ever even was.

OP of the post you're responding to here.

I'm genuinely surprised by the lack of acknowledgment for the 9th circuit. First of all, I specifically segmented my answer by splitting for ideology. So a circuit doesn't need a conservative/liberal judge to be. prestigious. It just needs multiples of either.

Secondly, here are the current active liberal judges who have fed 2+ clerks on the 9th circuit (to the best of my knowledge, please correct if wrong): Fletcher, Friedland, Berzon, Watford. Yes I know 2 of them are older and 1 is retiring, but there's also a lot of promising feeder judges to take their place. KBJ just hired 3 clerks from the 9th circuit. You don't think there might be some promise there?

Furthermore, speaking of general California, NDCal which feeds into the 9th is also very good. Chhabria and a few others (to a lesser degree) are highly sought after district court judges with a track record of feeding.

Lastly, keep in mind the conservatives are dominating the courts and there are only 3 liberal justices. So obviously in sheer absolute numbers, there will be less feeder opportunities. But in relative numbers, given the above bench of proven and potential judges, I'm willing to bet 9th will continue to historically be as strong as before (if not stronger because of continued polarization).

Watford is officially gone. He was the only actual feeder. Sending 2 or 3 clerks to the Court over the course of your entire judgeship doesn’t make you a feeder. KBJ is the only hope but I highly doubt she consistently pulls from the 9th given her application process and background. The 9th is just objectively weak right now. If you make me rank circuits, it’s around middle of the road currently.

This reasoning implies that Watford or Fletcher were the first ever 9th circuit judges to feed. That's absolutely wrong. The 9th circuit has been feeding for the past 75+ years and it's always been a cycle looking something like this:

The top students from HYS + T14 want to live in California, NYC, etc so they clerk there --> They go live in those areas --> They eventually settle down in those areas and become judges themselves --> They then hire the best from HYS + T14 who they can feed --> They then retire --> The clerks they previously hired then become judges in those areas --> They hire then also hire the best, etc. Rinse and repeat.

The only reason the above cycle broke for conservatives is because 1) Fed-soc and 2) Those areas moved so far left they completely repulsed the top conservative talent. So the top conservative talent goes and sets up shop elsewhere.

But as long as the top liberal talent wants to live in California or have chambers in California, the 9th circuit will continue to pull and attract the best liberal talent to feed. Rinse and repeat. This will take 20+ years to break because once judges setup chambers, they'll still be there. And I don't ever see it breaking.

[Anonymous User]

As an example of how Fed Soc has changed things geographically, i have friends with v high grades at a T6 going to the 8th 5th and 10th but libs are much more narrowly applying

[Anonymous User]

Boiling the various vague claims here to specific, brass-tacks facts, I think most or all people will agree on all of these:

(1) The Ninth Circuit, especially in California, is highly attractive to clerks and has many highly selective judges.
(2) The few liberal feeders left at both the district and appellate levels are highly concentrated in the DC and Second Circuits, not the Ninth Circuit. The conservative feeders are scattered and most concentrated in the Sixth and DC Circuits, insofar as they are concentrated anywhere.
(3) The median Ninth Circuit judge is more selective than the median judge in most circuits, but less selective than the median judge in the Second Circuit and significantly less selective than the median judge in the DC Circuit.
(4) The median Ninth Circuit judge in a major coastal city is roughly as selective as the median Second Circuit judge.

Where that leaves the 2/9/DC debate, and whether to categorize 9 with 2 and DC or with the rest, is a matter of personal opinion.

Also, I don't think much of this discussion is really relevant to the original question, which was accurately answered almost immediately (feeding, writing, connections, pre-bench reputation).

[Anonymous User]

Boiling the various vague claims here to specific, brass-tacks facts, I think most or all people will agree on all of these:

(1) The Ninth Circuit, especially in California, is highly attractive to clerks and has many highly selective judges.
(2) The few liberal feeders left at both the district and appellate levels are highly concentrated in the DC and Second Circuits, not the Ninth Circuit. The conservative feeders are scattered and most concentrated in the Sixth and DC Circuits, insofar as they are concentrated anywhere.
(3) The median Ninth Circuit judge is more selective than the median judge in most circuits, but less selective than the median judge in the Second Circuit and significantly less selective than the median judge in the DC Circuit.
(4) The median Ninth Circuit judge in a major coastal city is roughly as selective as the median Second Circuit judge.

Where that leaves the 2/9/DC debate, and whether to categorize 9 with 2 and DC or with the rest, is a matter of personal opinion.

Also, I don't think much of this discussion is really relevant to the original question, which was accurately answered almost immediately (feeding, writing, connections, pre-bench reputation).

Not sure what part of the thread made you think "most or all" will agree with you on these.

[Anonymous User]

Boiling the various vague claims here to specific, brass-tacks facts, I think most or all people will agree on all of these:

(1) The Ninth Circuit, especially in California, is highly attractive to clerks and has many highly selective judges.
(2) The few liberal feeders left at both the district and appellate levels are highly concentrated in the DC and Second Circuits, not the Ninth Circuit. The conservative feeders are scattered and most concentrated in the Sixth and DC Circuits, insofar as they are concentrated anywhere.
(3) The median Ninth Circuit judge is more selective than the median judge in most circuits, but less selective than the median judge in the Second Circuit and significantly less selective than the median judge in the DC Circuit.
(4) The median Ninth Circuit judge in a major coastal city is roughly as selective as the median Second Circuit judge.

Where that leaves the 2/9/DC debate, and whether to categorize 9 with 2 and DC or with the rest, is a matter of personal opinion.

Also, I don't think much of this discussion is really relevant to the original question, which was accurately answered almost immediately (feeding, writing, connections, pre-bench reputation).

Number 2 is factually wrong. 2nd and 9th are fairly comparable. In fact, per David Lat, 9th actually fed more than 2nd between 2017-2021. Number 2 also ignores the 75 year historic patterns, which you also will have to explain to me why that's going to break. I can see 2nd overtaking 9th slightly, but it's not going to be the massive margins you seem to be suggesting.

I actually agree with your 3rd point though. But that's only because there are so many 9th circuit judges that the median becomes skewed so it's the wrong metric to look at it. You gotta look at the top talent for each circuit. And when you do, it's effectively even.

[Anonymous User]

As an example of how Fed Soc has changed things geographically, i have friends with v high grades at a T6 going to the 8th 5th and 10th but libs are much more narrowly applying

My own experience was that liberal applicants sometimes viewed the red middle of the country with dismissiveness and contempt, and so barely even considered those circuits. Which is fine, they're entitled to their opinions and probably wouldn't get hired there anyway.

But is it really the FedSoc effect? Isn't it the extreme polarization of the left in law schools to the point where they cannot possibly imagine the horrors of clerking in Texas or Missouri or Kentucky?

[Anonymous User]

As an example of how Fed Soc has changed things geographically, i have friends with v high grades at a T6 going to the 8th 5th and 10th but libs are much more narrowly applying

My own experience was that liberal applicants sometimes viewed the red middle of the country with dismissiveness and contempt, and so barely even considered those circuits. Which is fine, they're entitled to their opinions and probably wouldn't get hired there anyway.

But is it really the FedSoc effect? Isn't it the extreme polarization of the left in law schools to the point where they cannot possibly imagine the horrors of clerking in Texas or Missouri or Kentucky?

Liberal applicants view it that way because there are no feeder or semi-feeder liberal judges in middle of the country. They are all in DC/2/9 with very few exceptions. Why is that the case? Goes back to the above discussion of where top liberal talent sets up chambers and attracts other top talent.

[Anonymous User]

Boiling the various vague claims here to specific, brass-tacks facts, I think most or all people will agree on all of these:

(1) The Ninth Circuit, especially in California, is highly attractive to clerks and has many highly selective judges.
(2) The few liberal feeders left at both the district and appellate levels are highly concentrated in the DC and Second Circuits, not the Ninth Circuit. The conservative feeders are scattered and most concentrated in the Sixth and DC Circuits, insofar as they are concentrated anywhere.
(3) The median Ninth Circuit judge is more selective than the median judge in most circuits, but less selective than the median judge in the Second Circuit and significantly less selective than the median judge in the DC Circuit.
(4) The median Ninth Circuit judge in a major coastal city is roughly as selective as the median Second Circuit judge.

Where that leaves the 2/9/DC debate, and whether to categorize 9 with 2 and DC or with the rest, is a matter of personal opinion.

Also, I don't think much of this discussion is really relevant to the original question, which was accurately answered almost immediately (feeding, writing, connections, pre-bench reputation).

Number 2 is factually wrong. 2nd and 9th are fairly comparable. In fact, per David Lat, 9th actually fed more than 2nd between 2017-2021. Number 2 also ignores the 75 year historic patterns, which you also will have to explain to me why that's going to break. I can see 2nd overtaking 9th slightly, but it's not going to be the massive margins you seem to be suggesting.

I actually agree with your 3rd point though. But that's only because there are so many 9th circuit judges that the median becomes skewed so it's the wrong metric to look at it. You gotta look at the top talent for each circuit. And when you do, it's effectively even.

Nathan and Lohier are major feeders going forward, insofar as major feeders exist. (Yes, Nathan didn't feed much on the district court, but she's now hiring jointly with Oetken a la Katzmann and that combo is probably second only to Srinivasan/Boasberg for liberals.) Calabresi also has fed quite a bit recently. The Ninth Circuit doesn't have one--everyone has talked about Friedland since she was appointed, but she's never really been a feeder for whatever reason, and Fletcher is no longer invested in feeding (though he does have a back catalogue that will keep getting hired for a bit). Both circuits also have some judges who might feed irregularly, like Berzon or Perez, but they're a wash.

[Anonymous User]

As an example of how Fed Soc has changed things geographically, i have friends with v high grades at a T6 going to the 8th 5th and 10th but libs are much more narrowly applying

My own experience was that liberal applicants sometimes viewed the red middle of the country with dismissiveness and contempt, and so barely even considered those circuits. Which is fine, they're entitled to their opinions and probably wouldn't get hired there anyway.

But is it really the FedSoc effect? Isn't it the extreme polarization of the left in law schools to the point where they cannot possibly imagine the horrors of clerking in Texas or Missouri or Kentucky?

Liberal applicants view it that way because there are no feeder or semi-feeder liberal judges in middle of the country. They are all in DC/2/9 with very few exceptions. Why is that the case? Goes back to the above discussion of where top liberal talent sets up chambers and attracts other top talent.

Right. Maybe we're talking past one another, but doesn't that help prove my point? There aren't liberal feeders in the Midwest or South. But if a highly ranked liberal at a T6 is so hateful of Ohio that they don't apply to Sutton (just as an example), is that best explained by FedSoc or by liberal applicants lacking desire to be anywhere other than major coastal metro areas? This is making the assumption—which I think is reasonable—that some very highly credentialized liberals could hired by non-liberal feeders outside 2/9.

[Anonymous User]

As an example of how Fed Soc has changed things geographically, i have friends with v high grades at a T6 going to the 8th 5th and 10th but libs are much more narrowly applying

My own experience was that liberal applicants sometimes viewed the red middle of the country with dismissiveness and contempt, and so barely even considered those circuits. Which is fine, they're entitled to their opinions and probably wouldn't get hired there anyway.

But is it really the FedSoc effect? Isn't it the extreme polarization of the left in law schools to the point where they cannot possibly imagine the horrors of clerking in Texas or Missouri or Kentucky?

Liberal applicants view it that way because there are no feeder or semi-feeder liberal judges in middle of the country. They are all in DC/2/9 with very few exceptions. Why is that the case? Goes back to the above discussion of where top liberal talent sets up chambers and attracts other top talent.

This is true and v stupid tbh - i clerked on the 8th for a “fed soc” judge as a coastal lib and it was a great experience that also opened a lot of doors to me. I get if ur top 5% people at HYSC then maybe limit urself to only lib semi feeders and up but otherwise ur risking striking out on a cool experience for silly reasons

[Anonymous User]

As an example of how Fed Soc has changed things geographically, i have friends with v high grades at a T6 going to the 8th 5th and 10th but libs are much more narrowly applying

My own experience was that liberal applicants sometimes viewed the red middle of the country with dismissiveness and contempt, and so barely even considered those circuits. Which is fine, they're entitled to their opinions and probably wouldn't get hired there anyway.

But is it really the FedSoc effect? Isn't it the extreme polarization of the left in law schools to the point where they cannot possibly imagine the horrors of clerking in Texas or Missouri or Kentucky?

Liberal applicants view it that way because there are no feeder or semi-feeder liberal judges in middle of the country. They are all in DC/2/9 with very few exceptions. Why is that the case? Goes back to the above discussion of where top liberal talent sets up chambers and attracts other top talent.

This is true and v stupid tbh - i clerked on the 8th for a “fed soc” judge as a coastal lib and it was a great experience that also opened a lot of doors to me. I get if ur top 5% people at HYSC then maybe limit urself to only lib semi feeders and up but otherwise ur risking striking out on a cool experience for silly reasons

+1

Cheaper rent and fun outdoor activities

[Anonymous User]

Boiling the various vague claims here to specific, brass-tacks facts, I think most or all people will agree on all of these:

(1) The Ninth Circuit, especially in California, is highly attractive to clerks and has many highly selective judges.
(2) The few liberal feeders left at both the district and appellate levels are highly concentrated in the DC and Second Circuits, not the Ninth Circuit. The conservative feeders are scattered and most concentrated in the Sixth and DC Circuits, insofar as they are concentrated anywhere.
(3) The median Ninth Circuit judge is more selective than the median judge in most circuits, but less selective than the median judge in the Second Circuit and significantly less selective than the median judge in the DC Circuit.
(4) The median Ninth Circuit judge in a major coastal city is roughly as selective as the median Second Circuit judge.

Where that leaves the 2/9/DC debate, and whether to categorize 9 with 2 and DC or with the rest, is a matter of personal opinion.

Also, I don't think much of this discussion is really relevant to the original question, which was accurately answered almost immediately (feeding, writing, connections, pre-bench reputation).

Number 2 is factually wrong. 2nd and 9th are fairly comparable. In fact, per David Lat, 9th actually fed more than 2nd between 2017-2021. Number 2 also ignores the 75 year historic patterns, which you also will have to explain to me why that's going to break. I can see 2nd overtaking 9th slightly, but it's not going to be the massive margins you seem to be suggesting.

I actually agree with your 3rd point though. But that's only because there are so many 9th circuit judges that the median becomes skewed so it's the wrong metric to look at it. You gotta look at the top talent for each circuit. And when you do, it's effectively even.

Nathan and Lohier are major feeders going forward, insofar as major feeders exist. (Yes, Nathan didn't feed much on the district court, but she's now hiring jointly with Oetken a la Katzmann and that combo is probably second only to Srinivasan/Boasberg for liberals.) Calabresi also has fed quite a bit recently. The Ninth Circuit doesn't have one--everyone has talked about Friedland since she was appointed, but she's never really been a feeder for whatever reason, and Fletcher is no longer invested in feeding (though he does have a back catalogue that will keep getting hired for a bit). Both circuits also have some judges who might feed irregularly, like Berzon or Perez, but they're a wash.

I agree with your point/prediction about Nathan and Lohier. But again, your original 2nd point is just factually wrong, and now you're trying to project. Btw - I agree with all your 2nd circuit projections! But if you're going to project for the 2nd, you have to project for the 9th too given the historic cycles. Friedland, Koh, Chaabria, etc who knows. Someone will come along if you're following the cycle.

Your comment about Fletcher is also factually wrong. He just fed twice in the last cycle! (Edit: Just saw your edit about Fletcher, doesn't change my point).

[Anonymous User]

I think part of it is on the judge side. There have been major feeders to the liberals in the South and Midwest in the past, but very few liberal judges on those circuits have the standard feeder bio right now. In part because that's of geographic distribution of elite liberal lawyers and the insularity of the SCOTUS bar, in part that's because of blue slips, and in part that's because of Biden's other priorities in nominations. Though I've always been confused why Diane Wood doesn't feed--she's certainly selective enough to--and to a lesser extent, Gregg Costa (rip) or Adalberto Jordan. I think Bloomekatz has a good chance though.

[Anonymous User]

I think part of it is on the judge side. There have been major feeders to the liberals in the South and Midwest in the past, but very few liberal judges on those circuits have the standard feeder bio right now. In part because that's of geographic distribution of elite liberal lawyers and the insularity of the SCOTUS bar, in part that's because of blue slips, and in part that's because of Biden's other priorities in nominations. Though I've always been confused why Diane Wood doesn't feed--she's certainly selective enough to--and to a lesser extent, Gregg Costa (rip) or Adalberto Jordan. I think Bloomekatz has a good chance though.

Alexandria is basically just DC burbs, but I don't think it's insanely out of pocket to predict Heytens feeds a decent amount and he is technically not CA2/CA9/DCC lol

Bacharach occasionally feeds from CA10. Barron on CA1.

That's all I got for non-DCC/2/9 liberals with decent feeder chances

[Anonymous User]

I think part of it is on the judge side. There have been major feeders to the liberals in the South and Midwest in the past, but very few liberal judges on those circuits have the standard feeder bio right now. In part because that's of geographic distribution of elite liberal lawyers and the insularity of the SCOTUS bar, in part that's because of blue slips, and in part that's because of Biden's other priorities in nominations. Though I've always been confused why Diane Wood doesn't feed--she's certainly selective enough to--and to a lesser extent, Gregg Costa (rip) or Adalberto Jordan. I think Bloomekatz has a good chance though.

Alexandria is basically just DC burbs, but I don't think it's insanely out of pocket to predict Heytens feeds a decent amount and he is technically not CA2/CA9/DCC lol

Bacharach occasionally feeds from CA10. Barron on CA1.

That's all I got for non-DCC/2/9 liberals with decent feeder chances

Has Bacharach ever fed? If I remember right David Hamilton on CA7 has fed once or twice, as has Karen Nelson Moore on CA6. But they're not even semi-feeders. Barron feeds, and Harris and Motz have fed a bit, but they're obviously coastal. (I agree Heytens has potential.)

I don't know how the new Biden nominees are stacking up--maybe someone at YLS can tell us who's hot--but of the non-coastal nominees I'd guess Bloomekatz and Lee have the best chances.