Let's talk 5th Circuit! Forum

[Anonymous User]

Which (if any) of the 5th's conservatives are more moderate/non-ideological? You hear a lot about how the 5th is the most conservative COA in the country and how extreme Jones, Ho, etc. are, so should liberal applicants with ties to the 5th just apply to the (few) Dem appointees & focus on other circuits?

[Anonymous User]

Which (if any) of the 5th's conservatives are more moderate/non-ideological? You hear a lot about how the 5th is the most conservative COA in the country and how extreme Jones, Ho, etc. are, so should liberal applicants with ties to the 5th just apply to the (few) Dem appointees & focus on other circuits?

Of the actives Elrod, Southwick, and Haynes don't have reputations for being particularly ideological afaik. I could see Willett going for a very well-qualified liberal as well. The rest of the active Republican appointees are all extremely conservative.

I'm not familiar with a lot of the seniors, but Higginbotham, despite being a Reagan appointee, is moderate (maybe even liberal?) and has an excellent reputation.

[Anonymous User]

Which (if any) of the 5th's conservatives are more moderate/non-ideological? You hear a lot about how the 5th is the most conservative COA in the country and how extreme Jones, Ho, etc. are, so should liberal applicants with ties to the 5th just apply to the (few) Dem appointees & focus on other circuits?

Of the actives Elrod, Southwick, and Haynes don't have reputations for being particularly ideological afaik. I could see Willett going for a very well-qualified liberal as well. The rest of the active Republican appointees are all extremely conservative.

I'm not familiar with a lot of the seniors, but Higginbotham, despite being a Reagan appointee, is moderate (maybe even liberal?) and has an excellent reputation.

The majority of the Haynes clerks I know are liberal/moderate. I get the sense that she doesn't care about ideological purity like Ho and the other conservatives.

[lavarman84]

Which (if any) of the 5th's conservatives are more moderate/non-ideological? You hear a lot about how the 5th is the most conservative COA in the country and how extreme Jones, Ho, etc. are, so should liberal applicants with ties to the 5th just apply to the (few) Dem appointees & focus on other circuits?

Of the actives Elrod, Southwick, and Haynes don't have reputations for being particularly ideological afaik. I could see Willett going for a very well-qualified liberal as well. The rest of the active Republican appointees are all extremely conservative.

I'm not familiar with a lot of the seniors, but Higginbotham, despite being a Reagan appointee, is moderate (maybe even liberal?) and has an excellent reputation.

Elrod may not be ideological in hiring (I can't speak to that), but she's definitely ideological in her jurisprudence.

[Anonymous User]

Which (if any) of the 5th's conservatives are more moderate/non-ideological? You hear a lot about how the 5th is the most conservative COA in the country and how extreme Jones, Ho, etc. are, so should liberal applicants with ties to the 5th just apply to the (few) Dem appointees & focus on other circuits?

Of the actives Elrod, Southwick, and Haynes don't have reputations for being particularly ideological afaik. I could see Willett going for a very well-qualified liberal as well. The rest of the active Republican appointees are all extremely conservative.

I'm not familiar with a lot of the seniors, but Higginbotham, despite being a Reagan appointee, is moderate (maybe even liberal?) and has an excellent reputation.

Elrod may not be ideological in hiring (I can't speak to that), but she's definitely ideological in her jurisprudence.

Yeah, Elrod's opinion in Texas v. US seemed in line with what Jones or any of the Trump appointees would write: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... fraud.html. (I'll admit the tone of the article is quite dramatic, but it mentions several conservative scholars who think the footnote was unnecessary and unhelpful)

At the same time, apparently Jones resigned from being Chief early in 2012 so that Elrod wouldn't become Chief 7 years later? https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/art ... troversial.

I wonder what the beef is between these two - doesn't seem like it's jurisprudence...

[Anonymous User]

Any knowledge of what the Dem appointees are like to work for: Dennis, Stewart, Graves, Higginson? Also, what are MS/LA like to live in?

[Anonymous User]

Which (if any) of the 5th's conservatives are more moderate/non-ideological? You hear a lot about how the 5th is the most conservative COA in the country and how extreme Jones, Ho, etc. are, so should liberal applicants with ties to the 5th just apply to the (few) Dem appointees & focus on other circuits?

Of the actives Elrod, Southwick, and Haynes don't have reputations for being particularly ideological afaik. I could see Willett going for a very well-qualified liberal as well. The rest of the active Republican appointees are all extremely conservative.

I'm not familiar with a lot of the seniors, but Higginbotham, despite being a Reagan appointee, is moderate (maybe even liberal?) and has an excellent reputation.

Elrod may not be ideological in hiring (I can't speak to that), but she's definitely ideological in her jurisprudence.

Yeah, Elrod's opinion in Texas v. US seemed in line with what Jones or any of the Trump appointees would write: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... fraud.html. (I'll admit the tone of the article is quite dramatic, but it mentions several conservative scholars who think the footnote was unnecessary and unhelpful)

At the same time, apparently Jones resigned from being Chief early in 2012 so that Elrod wouldn't become Chief 7 years later? https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/art ... troversial.

I wonder what the beef is between these two - doesn't seem like it's jurisprudence...

Jones thinks Elrod is incompetent. Frankly I don't think she's wrong about that. Jones also loves Owen, and resigning when she did made it so Owen could become chief judge (if Jones had served her full term, Owen would have been too old to become chief judge by the time Elrod's term expired).

[Anonymous User]

Which (if any) of the 5th's conservatives are more moderate/non-ideological? You hear a lot about how the 5th is the most conservative COA in the country and how extreme Jones, Ho, etc. are, so should liberal applicants with ties to the 5th just apply to the (few) Dem appointees & focus on other circuits?

Of the actives Elrod, Southwick, and Haynes don't have reputations for being particularly ideological afaik. I could see Willett going for a very well-qualified liberal as well. The rest of the active Republican appointees are all extremely conservative.

I'm not familiar with a lot of the seniors, but Higginbotham, despite being a Reagan appointee, is moderate (maybe even liberal?) and has an excellent reputation.

Elrod may not be ideological in hiring (I can't speak to that), but she's definitely ideological in her jurisprudence.

Yeah, Elrod's opinion in Texas v. US seemed in line with what Jones or any of the Trump appointees would write: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... fraud.html. (I'll admit the tone of the article is quite dramatic, but it mentions several conservative scholars who think the footnote was unnecessary and unhelpful)

At the same time, apparently Jones resigned from being Chief early in 2012 so that Elrod wouldn't become Chief 7 years later? https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/art ... troversial.

I wonder what the beef is between these two - doesn't seem like it's jurisprudence...

Jones thinks Elrod is incompetent. Frankly I don't think she's wrong about that. Jones also loves Owen, and resigning when she did made it so Owen could become chief judge (if Jones had served her full term, Owen would have been too old to become chief judge by the time Elrod's term expired).

Confirming my priors that the Fifth is a basket case and Edith Jones is insane. The forthcoming article by Judge Newman and Marin Levy on chief judges quotes a bunch of anonymous judges criticizing an (unnamed) recent chief judge for doing this and I guess it must be Jones, which fits.

[Anonymous User]

Which (if any) of the 5th's conservatives are more moderate/non-ideological? You hear a lot about how the 5th is the most conservative COA in the country and how extreme Jones, Ho, etc. are, so should liberal applicants with ties to the 5th just apply to the (few) Dem appointees & focus on other circuits?

Of the actives Elrod, Southwick, and Haynes don't have reputations for being particularly ideological afaik. I could see Willett going for a very well-qualified liberal as well. The rest of the active Republican appointees are all extremely conservative.

I'm not familiar with a lot of the seniors, but Higginbotham, despite being a Reagan appointee, is moderate (maybe even liberal?) and has an excellent reputation.

Elrod may not be ideological in hiring (I can't speak to that), but she's definitely ideological in her jurisprudence.

Yeah, Elrod's opinion in Texas v. US seemed in line with what Jones or any of the Trump appointees would write: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... fraud.html. (I'll admit the tone of the article is quite dramatic, but it mentions several conservative scholars who think the footnote was unnecessary and unhelpful)

At the same time, apparently Jones resigned from being Chief early in 2012 so that Elrod wouldn't become Chief 7 years later? https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/art ... troversial.

I wonder what the beef is between these two - doesn't seem like it's jurisprudence...

Jones thinks Elrod is incompetent. Frankly I don't think she's wrong about that. Jones also loves Owen, and resigning when she did made it so Owen could become chief judge (if Jones had served her full term, Owen would have been too old to become chief judge by the time Elrod's term expired).

I'm curious why this is? Is there anything to justify Jones' perception?

[Anonymous User]

Jones thinks Elrod is incompetent. Frankly I don't think she's wrong about that. Jones also loves Owen, and resigning when she did made it so Owen could become chief judge (if Jones had served her full term, Owen would have been too old to become chief judge by the time Elrod's term expired).

I'm curious why this is? Is there anything to justify Jones' perception?

Well Jerry Smith, not exactly known as a moderate, just went in on Elrod and Oldham today -- https://twitter.com/RMFifthCircuit/stat ... 2429012998

[Anonymous User]

The majority is genuinely lawless, as is denying its new Title VII interpretation, which would be potentially massive, precedential status—at least Oldham surely must know better, but he’s trying out for SCOTUS (though I suspect this will backfire, and possibly even be disqualifying). And Smith’s dissent is extraordinarily brutal considering his ideology and the case.

[Anonymous User]

The majority is genuinely lawless, as is denying its new Title VII interpretation, which would be potentially massive, precedential status—at least Oldham surely must know better, but he’s trying out for SCOTUS (though I suspect this will backfire, and possibly even be disqualifying). And Smith’s dissent is extraordinarily brutal considering his ideology and the case.

Lol this type of stuff might well be why Judge Costa is retiring...

[Anonymous User]

Meh the media is full of dumdums reprinting what they want. Smith sounds like a crank.

He could have had the opinion published if that mattered to him (he had the right to insist). Instead he lets it go unpublished and rants about that fact for 10 pages. Huh?

[lavarman84]

Meh the media is full of dumdums reprinting what they want. Smith sounds like a crank.

He could have had the opinion published if that mattered to him (he had the right to insist). Instead he lets it go unpublished and rants about that fact for 10 pages. Huh?

Smith is right about the law and the majority. As for publishing it, why would he seek to have such a lawless decision published and made precedential? That would undermine his point, even if it might advance his goal of en banc review.

[Anonymous User]

Meh the media is full of dumdums reprinting what they want. Smith sounds like a crank.

He could have had the opinion published if that mattered to him (he had the right to insist). Instead he lets it go unpublished and rants about that fact for 10 pages. Huh?

By media dum dums are you referring to raffi melkonian (who clerked for Elrod like 10 years ago)? Or who are you talking about? And why would a judge who believes a case is wrongly decided insist on making that case precedential? Huh?

[Anonymous User]

Meh the media is full of dumdums reprinting what they want. Smith sounds like a crank.

He could have had the opinion published if that mattered to him (he had the right to insist). Instead he lets it go unpublished and rants about that fact for 10 pages. Huh?

By media dum dums are you referring to raffi melkonian (who clerked for Elrod like 10 years ago)? Or who are you talking about? And why would a judge who believes a case is wrongly decided insist on making that case precedential? Huh?

Yeah the point is that the majority would obviously publish the opinion if they were acting in good faith and believed it was correct, not that the majority *should* be precedential. Not sure that anon is a lawyer.

[Anonymous User]

Jones thinks Elrod is incompetent. Frankly I don't think she's wrong about that. Jones also loves Owen, and resigning when she did made it so Owen could become chief judge (if Jones had served her full term, Owen would have been too old to become chief judge by the time Elrod's term expired).

This is incorrect. At no point would Judge Elrod ever have become Chief Judge before Judge Owen, and in no way did Judge Jones do anything that prevents Judge Elrod from becoming Chief Judge.

If Judge Jones had served her full term, Judge Stewart's tenure would have blocked Judge Owen from becoming Chief Judge. So it would've gone from Judge Jones to Judge Stewart to Judge Elrod.

By stepping down a year early, Jboth Judge Owen and Judge Elrod will serve as Chief Judges of the Fifth Circuit. It went from Judge Jones to Judge Stewart to Judge Owen and next to Judge Elrod.

Had Judge Jones stepped down two years early, Judge Smith would have become Chief Judge, Judge Stewart never would have been Chief Judge, Judge Owen would still be the current Chief Judge, and Judge Elrod would still be the next Chief Judge.

Instead of impugning or assigning motives, maybe we just take Judge Jones at her word that she stepped aside when she did for family reasons. Because it's clear that if she were doing it to be tactical or strategic, she would have stepped down a year prior, thereby ensuring four consecutive conservative Chief Judges.

[Anonymous User]

Just wanted to drop in and say Wilson is hired through 2025.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have experience on the 5th Circuit and the Texas Supreme Court? They seem very interconnected—the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court and the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit are married. If I'm someone that would be interested on clerking on the Fifth Circuit do you think I should apply to the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court of Texas simultaneously?

[jdoeman1234567]

Anyone have experience on the 5th Circuit and the Texas Supreme Court? They seem very interconnected—the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court and the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit are married. If I'm someone that would be interested on clerking on the Fifth Circuit do you think I should apply to the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court of Texas simultaneously?

I would definitely apply to both if you want to practice in Texas. My understanding is that a Texas Supreme Court clerkship is absolutely worth doing in its own right and I believe most, if not all, biglaw firms give a clerkship bonus for a TX SC clerkship. And if your ultimate goal is the Fifth Circuit, you are a much more attractive candidate to several judges if you have the TX SC clerkship under your belt.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have experience on the 5th Circuit and the Texas Supreme Court? They seem very interconnected—the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court and the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit are married. If I'm someone that would be interested on clerking on the Fifth Circuit do you think I should apply to the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court of Texas simultaneously?

I would definitely apply to both if you want to practice in Texas. My understanding is that a Texas Supreme Court clerkship is absolutely worth doing in its own right and I believe most, if not all, biglaw firms give a clerkship bonus for a TX SC clerkship. And if your ultimate goal is the Fifth Circuit, you are a much more attractive candidate to several judges if you have the TX SC clerkship under your belt.

Several of the SCOTX justices consistently send to CA5. And CA5 hires so far out that several judges consistently send clerks to SCOTX to fill a gap year. CA5 is definitely more prestigious, but some SCOTX justices hire clerks during the summer between 1L and 2L year. If you want a chance with those justices, you will likely be applying to CA5 and SCOTX simultaneously.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone have experience on the 5th Circuit and the Texas Supreme Court? They seem very interconnected—the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court and the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit are married. If I'm someone that would be interested on clerking on the Fifth Circuit do you think I should apply to the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court of Texas simultaneously?

I would definitely apply to both if you want to practice in Texas. My understanding is that a Texas Supreme Court clerkship is absolutely worth doing in its own right and I believe most, if not all, biglaw firms give a clerkship bonus for a TX SC clerkship. And if your ultimate goal is the Fifth Circuit, you are a much more attractive candidate to several judges if you have the TX SC clerkship under your belt.

Several of the SCOTX justices consistently send to CA5. And CA5 hires so far out that several judges consistently send clerks to SCOTX to fill a gap year. CA5 is definitely more prestigious, but some SCOTX justices hire clerks during the summer between 1L and 2L year. If you want a chance with those justices, you will likely be applying to CA5 and SCOTX simultaneously.

I am the person who asked the question. Am a 3L right now, trying to settle into Texas long term. Thanks for the help, going to blanket 5th Circuit and the Supreme Court of Texas once I get my application into shape. Should probably also send in a few district court apps I guess too.

[Anonymous User]

Damn Willett posting for 2026—these judges keep hiring way and way ahead.

[Anonymous User]

Damn Willett posting for 2026—these judges keep hiring way and way ahead.

For one spot. Otherwise he's booked until 2027.

[Anonymous User]

Damn Willett posting for 2026—these judges keep hiring way and way ahead.

For one spot. Otherwise he's booked until 2027.

How/why are judges like Willett booking that far in advance? Maybe they want solid work experience but also don't want to miss out on the 1L fed soc rush?