Top Law Schools

*UPDATED 3/5*

Below is the updated list of SCOTUS clerks by judge from OT 2009 to present (including the partially filled OT 2013 and 2014 classes). I included updates from the new ATL post and extended the list to include judges mentioned in this thread who had sent two clerks to the SCOTUS.

Also, I added the number of clerks each judge has sent to the Bristow Fellowship in the last four Bristow classes (only for judges already on the list). However, the rankings still only reflect the number of SCOTUS clerks.

1. Garland (D.C. Cir.), 20 + 1 Bristow
2. Kavanaugh (D.C. Cir.), 18 + 1 Bristow
3. Wilkinson (4th Cir.), 14 + 2 Bristows
4. Kozinski (9th Cir.), 10
4. Sutton (6th Cir.), 10 + 2 Bristows
6. Katzmann (2d Cir.), 9
7. Tatel (D.C. Cir.), 8 + 1 Bristow
8. Griffith (D.C. Cir.), 7
8. O'Scannlain (9th Cir.), 7
8. Reinhardt (9th Cir.), 7
11. D. Ginsburg (D.C. Cir.), 6
11. Gorsuch (10th Cir.), 6 + 1 Bristow
11. Calabresi (2d Cir.), 6
11. Fletcher (9th Cir.), 6 + 1 Bristow
15. Posner (7th Cir.), 5
15. J.R. Brown (D.C. Cir.), 5
17. Boudin (1st Cir.), 4 + 1 Bristow
17. Randolph (D.C. Cir.), 4 + 1 Bristow
19. E. Jones (5th Cir.), 3 + 1 Bristow
19. Sentelle (D.C. Cir.), 3
19. S. Williams (D.C. Cir.), 3
22. Carnes (11th), 2
22. Chagares (3d), 2
22. Colloton (8th), 2
22. Kethledge (6th), 2 + 2 Bristows
22. Leval (2d), 2
22. Niemeyer (4th), 2 + 1 Bristow
22. Pryor (11th), 2
22. Sack (2d), 2
22. Scirica (3d), 2

Anonymous User wrote:I've searched for this on the forums and found a little information, but I would think a comprehensive list would be really helpful. Does anyone know how to find one (or could anyone provide one)? Thanks!

uh, google feeder judges? tons of stuff.

There actually is not a totally up-to-date tally anywhere (that I've found). Lots of sites have semi-recent but incomplete info. The best way to do it would be to look at the Wikipedia page for "list of Supreme Court law clerks" and tally up the circuit judges from the last, say, five terms. Then you can combine this data with the clerks for the upcoming OT2013 term (which is listed somewhere on Above the Law). I'm too busy to do this now, but if no one has done it in the next few weeks, I'll take a crack at it.

EDIT: And to clarify, people mean different things when they say "feeders," but I'd say a "feeder" is someone who fairly reliably sends one clerk to the Supreme Court every term. Some judges (like Kavanaugh, Garland, and recently Griffith) are on the upper end of the spectrum, sending 3 or 4 a year. Some others (like Boudin or Fletcher) have probably averaged something like one or two every term in the last five years. Other names, off the top of my head: Kozinski, Tatel, Sutton, Calabresi, Wilkinson. There are plenty of others; I think a "Top 20" list captures it pretty well, though. Such a list used to exist when the Clerkship Scramble (RIP) was still active.

Echo the above, plus Posner, Gorsuch, O'Scannlain, Niemeyer, Sentelle, Katzmann, Reinhardt, Kethledge...

Here's a list tallying S. Ct. clerks from OT 2009 - present (i.e., including OT 2013 and 2014 to-date, according to Above the Law). To a prior poster's point, this doesn't quite capture "momentum"--particularly, the momentum of Judge Griffith, who has sent six to the Court in OTs 2011 and 2012 alone. These figures include the retired Justices.

1. Garland (D.C. Cir.), 20
2. Kavanaugh (D.C. Cir.), 17
3. Wilkinson (4th Cir.), 13
4. Kozinski (9th Cir.), 10
4. Sutton (6th Cir.), 10
6. Katzmann (2d Cir.), 9
7. Tatel (D.C. Cir.), 8
8. Griffith (D.C. Cir.), 7
9. D. Ginsburg (D.C. Cir.), 6
9. Gorsuch (10th Cir.), 6
9. O'Scannlain (9th Cir.), 6
9. Reinhardt (9th Cir.), 6
13. Calabresi (2d Cir.), 5
13. Fletcher (9th Cir.), 5
13. Posner (7th Cir.), 5
16. Boudin (1st Cir.), 4
16. J.R. Brown (D.C. Cir.), 4
16. Randolph (D.C. Cir.), 4
19. E. Jones (5th Cir.), 3
19. Sentelle (D.C. Cir.), 3
19. S. Williams (D.C. Cir.), 3

Does the DC circuit take 1L summer interns?

manofjustice wrote:Does the DC circuit take 1L summer interns?

Yes, I think so.

I stand corrected. My friend who externed at the D.C. Cir. did so during the school year, not during the summer.

Tangerine Gleam wrote:

manofjustice wrote:Does the DC circuit take 1L summer interns?

Yes, I think so.

I'm not so sure. The D.C. Circuit does not hear arguments over the summer (and the judges aren't particularly overworked). D.D.C. definitely does--I know students who have interned for Judges Jackson, Howell, and Leon, and for Chief Judge Lamberth.

Anonymous User wrote:Here's a list tallying S. Ct. clerks from OT 2009 - present (i.e., including OT 2013 and 2014 to-date, according to Above the Law). To a prior poster's point, this doesn't quite capture "momentum"--particularly, the momentum of Judge Griffith, who has sent six to the Court in OTs 2011 and 2012 alone. These figures include the retired Justices.

1. Garland (D.C. Cir.), 20
2. Kavanaugh (D.C. Cir.), 17
3. Wilkinson (4th Cir.), 13
4. Kozinski (9th Cir.), 10
4. Sutton (6th Cir.), 10
6. Katzmann (2d Cir.), 9
7. Tatel (D.C. Cir.), 8
8. Griffith (D.C. Cir.), 7
9. D. Ginsburg (D.C. Cir.), 6
9. Gorsuch (10th Cir.), 6
9. O'Scannlain (9th Cir.), 6
9. Reinhardt (9th Cir.), 6
13. Calabresi (2d Cir.), 5
13. Fletcher (9th Cir.), 5
13. Posner (7th Cir.), 5
16. Boudin (1st Cir.), 4
16. J.R. Brown (D.C. Cir.), 4
16. Randolph (D.C. Cir.), 4
19. E. Jones (5th Cir.), 3
19. Sentelle (D.C. Cir.), 3
19. S. Williams (D.C. Cir.), 3

One up-and-comer to add to this list is Kethledge (6th Cir.), who recently sent his first clerk to the Supreme Court. He's young and well respected.

Awesome thread! Thank you everybody!

Anonymous User wrote:Here's a list tallying S. Ct. clerks from OT 2009 - present (i.e., including OT 2013 and 2014 to-date, according to Above the Law). To a prior poster's point, this doesn't quite capture "momentum"--particularly, the momentum of Judge Griffith, who has sent six to the Court in OTs 2011 and 2012 alone. These figures include the retired Justices.

1. Garland (D.C. Cir.), 20
2. Kavanaugh (D.C. Cir.), 17
3. Wilkinson (4th Cir.), 13
4. Kozinski (9th Cir.), 10
4. Sutton (6th Cir.), 10
6. Katzmann (2d Cir.), 9
7. Tatel (D.C. Cir.), 8
8. Griffith (D.C. Cir.), 7
9. D. Ginsburg (D.C. Cir.), 6
9. Gorsuch (10th Cir.), 6
9. O'Scannlain (9th Cir.), 6
9. Reinhardt (9th Cir.), 6
13. Calabresi (2d Cir.), 5
13. Fletcher (9th Cir.), 5
13. Posner (7th Cir.), 5
16. Boudin (1st Cir.), 4
16. J.R. Brown (D.C. Cir.), 4
16. Randolph (D.C. Cir.), 4
19. E. Jones (5th Cir.), 3
19. Sentelle (D.C. Cir.), 3
19. S. Williams (D.C. Cir.), 3

Any reason why Posner is not higher up?

Anonymous User wrote:Any reason why Posner is not higher up?

Well, stuff like this might be one reason.

GertrudePerkins wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Any reason why Posner is not higher up?

Well, stuff like this might be one reason.

Above anon. Haha, nice. I assumed he/other Justices wouldn't hold it against Posner clerks though. But you might be right.

So I assume if you get an opportunity for any one of these judges you should take it regardless of location and career plans and such?

Anonymous User wrote:So I assume if you get an opportunity for any one of these judges you should take it regardless of location and career plans and such?

Do you want a small chance at clerking on the Supreme Court? If so, then yes. If not, then there might be other judges who would better suit your demeanor or career plans.

This isn't like law school where there are discrete and easy to identify rankings.

Not that I have any experience with this, but my guess is that if this is the kind of question you have to ask to an online message board, you probably shouldn't worry about it.

Elston Gunn wrote:Not that I have any experience with this, but my guess is that if this is the kind of question you have to ask to an online message board, you probably shouldn't worry about it.

What?

Anonymous User wrote:

Elston Gunn wrote:Not that I have any experience with this, but my guess is that if this is the kind of question you have to ask to an online message board, you probably shouldn't worry about it.

What?

People who have a real shot at SCOTUS clerkships generally have that shot becuase they have extremely connected professors in their corner, who are the people to ask about judges. I don't know, maybe it's somewhat different at schools where ranking is easy, and you can say you're identifiably #1 in your class.

Elston Gunn wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Elston Gunn wrote:Not that I have any experience with this, but my guess is that if this is the kind of question you have to ask to an online message board, you probably shouldn't worry about it.

What?

People who have a real shot at SCOTUS clerkships generally have that shot becuase they have extremely connected professors in their corner, who are the people to ask about judges. I don't know, maybe it's somewhat different at schools where ranking is easy, and you can say you're identifiably #1 in your class.

You seem to mean well, but this post isn't really helpful. Also, are you a 1st semester 1L?

Anonymous User wrote:

Elston Gunn wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Elston Gunn wrote:Not that I have any experience with this, but my guess is that if this is the kind of question you have to ask to an online message board, you probably shouldn't worry about it.

What?

People who have a real shot at SCOTUS clerkships generally have that shot becuase they have extremely connected professors in their corner, who are the people to ask about judges. I don't know, maybe it's somewhat different at schools where ranking is easy, and you can say you're identifiably #1 in your class.

You seem to mean well, but this post isn't really helpful. Also, are you a 1st semester 1L?

It may not be helpful, but I don't think it's wrong.

Anonymous User wrote: It may not be helpful, but I don't think it's wrong.

I can say from personal experience that this is just wrong. You can have the right school, qualifications, and professors and access to historical data and still have gaps in your knowledge that need to be filled. Just because you don't have a list of the top feeders at your fingertips doesn't mean that you're not a good candidate.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: It may not be helpful, but I don't think it's wrong.

I can say from personal experience that this is just wrong. You can have the right school, qualifications, and professors and access to historical data and still have gaps in your knowledge that need to be filled. Just because you don't have a list of the top feeders at your fingertips doesn't mean that you're not a good candidate.

Sure, I'm just not sure that this is the best place to get that info (list of feeders, sure; I was responding to the comments about the "so you take these positions regardless, right?" question). And not strictly about feeders per se, but I have always heard that if you have to ask about what it takes to clerk for SCOTUS, you probably [note: not invariably] aren't the best candidate (because if you were that great a candidate, people would already have told you).

I mean, not that I would know from personal experience, because this is all way out of my league. Maybe it would have been more accurate to say what I had heard was consistent with what Elston Gunn said, and left it at that.

(Also, I totally didn't mean to post anon before, so sorry about that.)

Anonymous User wrote:So I assume if you get an opportunity for any one of these judges you should take it regardless of location and career plans and such?

Nope. There are several judges on that list that some people may recommend against accepting clerkships with. Plus, there's other things to think about, like if all of a judge's SCOTUS clerks are with Justice Thomas and you are not that conservative yourself, then it's pretty unlikely that the clerkship with the feeder will help you get on SCOTUS. And the general rule with feeders is this: judges become feeders by consistently hiring people with SCOTUS clerkship credentials. A clerkship with a feeder judge is not going to give you those credentials if you don't already have them. Likewise, a clerkship with a non-feeder judge who's well respected (and there's a fair number of those) doesn't foreclose a SCOTUS clerkship.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: It may not be helpful, but I don't think it's wrong.

I can say from personal experience that this is just wrong. You can have the right school, qualifications, and professors and access to historical data and still have gaps in your knowledge that need to be filled. Just because you don't have a list of the top feeders at your fingertips doesn't mean that you're not a good candidate.

Sure, I'm just not sure that this is the best place to get that info (list of feeders, sure; I was responding to the comments about the "so you take these positions regardless, right?" question). And not strictly about feeders per se, but I have always heard that if you have to ask about what it takes to clerk for SCOTUS, you probably [note: not invariably] aren't the best candidate (because if you were that great a candidate, people would already have told you).

I mean, not that I would know from personal experience, because this is all way out of my league. Maybe it would have been more accurate to say what I had heard was consistent with what Elston Gunn said, and left it at that.

(Also, I totally didn't mean to post anon before, so sorry about that.)

Depends what school you go to. If you are at HYS or another school that regularly sends clerks to SCOTUS, sure. But if you are the #1 kid at a school that maybe sends a SCOTUS clerk every decade (or less), there is much less institutional knowledge about these things. But that doesn't mean you're not qualified.

If you have even a remote shot at a Supreme Court clerkship, your school will let you know who the feeders are.