Top Law Schools

Get to become SCOTUS clerks? Talk about an unexpected windfall.

Yes, I believe that is how it typically works...so long as the new justice is a judge. Trump has a few on the list who aren't in a judicial role right now.

ETA: Don't know how they would handle State Supreme court judges and their clerks... presumably, the Judge may want more qualified candidates (no offense to the SSC clerks)

Will the judges on "the list" continue with hiring per usual, or would they wait to see if he begins the vetting process?

RaceJudicata wrote:Yes, I believe that is how it typically works...so long as the new justice is a judge. Trump has a few on the list who aren't in a judicial role right now.

ETA: Don't know how they would handle State Supreme court judges and their clerks... presumably, the Judge may want more qualified candidates (no offense to the SSC clerks)

I interviewed with one of the SSC judges on Trump's list. Existing clerks had great credentials and most could easily have been AIII clerks. That's a bold assumption. Despite the TLS groupthink, there are very good reasons for picking a SSC clerkship over even COA.

I'm clerking for one of the SSC justices and will move on to a COA after. Stats are top 2% HYSCCN. She might just bump me until after the COA if an elevation happens.

Yeah I wouldn't assume that the SSC clerks are unqualified. Larsen, at least, has been sending some of her clerks to feeder COA judges for the last couple terms.

People here are so defensive. I take RJ to mean that, as a general statement, most SSC clerks don't have the classic qualifications to have clerked for an AIII feeder. (Obviously, there are a few chambers that are the exceptions that prove the rule.) But neither do 99.9% of law students, so ... um ... don't take it personally?

Anonymous User wrote:Will the judges on "the list" continue with hiring per usual, or would they wait to see if he begins the vetting process?

Bump

I really doubt you'll get an answer to this. My judge has not hired the rest of my clerk class yet, but I'm not planning on texting him/her to ask what the plans are.

lawlorbust wrote:People here are so defensive. I take RJ to mean that, as a general statement, most SSC clerks don't have the classic qualifications to have clerked for an AIII feeder. (Obviously, there are a few chambers that are the exceptions that prove the rule.) But neither do 99.9% of law students, so ... um ... don't take it personally?

Yeah, that was my point. Most SSC clerks don't have the credentials of AIII supreme court clerks (if some of y'all out there do, then good for you). Also can't speak for the specific clerks of those SSC judges on Trump's roster. I don't think thats a very controversial (or unrealistic) assumption.

Definitely cancelled an interview with a judge on Trump's list earlier this year (before the list came out) after getting an offer from a judge I thought was a better fit for me and my career path. Not even that upset right now, more laughing at the darkly comedic idea of me stumbling ass-backwards into a SCOTUS clerkship because of Donald Trump.

I'll be working for one of the judges on the list in one of the upcoming terms.

Is it wrong to assume that if my Judge gets the promotion that I would have to find a new/different clerkship? It seems that a Justice would not want to have a clerk who has not yet gotten experience in an appellate court of some sort (state or federal). Or is the traditional practice to bring along the clerks to as far out as the Judge/Justice has already hired?

Anonymous User wrote:Yeah I wouldn't assume that the SSC clerks are unqualified. Larsen, at least, has been sending some of her clerks to feeder COA judges for the last couple terms.

Yeah, I know someone who is clerking for Larsen next term and then Sutton in 2017. She certainly has the traditional qualifications for SCOTUS.

Anonymous User wrote:I'll be working for one of the judges on the list in one of the upcoming terms.

Is it wrong to assume that if my Judge gets the promotion that I would have to find a new/different clerkship? It seems that a Justice would not want to have a clerk who has not yet gotten experience in an appellate court of some sort (state or federal). Or is the traditional practice to bring along the clerks to as far out as the Judge/Justice has already hired?

You're not wrong. They're not going to take a clerk w/o experience with them to the Court. It seems like the move recently has been to hire some previous Supreme Court clerks (who know the lay of the land) along with some of the judge's previous clerks.

But the new justice will usually (though not always) help re-placing the clerks and will sometimes (definitely not always) fit them in in future years.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I'll be working for one of the judges on the list in one of the upcoming terms.

Is it wrong to assume that if my Judge gets the promotion that I would have to find a new/different clerkship? It seems that a Justice would not want to have a clerk who has not yet gotten experience in an appellate court of some sort (state or federal). Or is the traditional practice to bring along the clerks to as far out as the Judge/Justice has already hired?

You're not wrong. They're not going to take a clerk w/o experience with them to the Court. It seems like the move recently has been to hire some previous Supreme Court clerks (who know the lay of the land) along with some of the judge's previous clerks.

But the new justice will usually (though not always) help re-placing the clerks and will sometimes (definitely not always) fit them in in future years.

This may be right, but (citation needed)

^ Does this analysis change if the clerk already has a dist. ct. clerkship lined up prior to the clerkship w/the shortlister?

ndirish2010 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Yeah I wouldn't assume that the SSC clerks are unqualified. Larsen, at least, has been sending some of her clerks to feeder COA judges for the last couple terms.

Yeah, I know someone who is clerking for Larsen next term and then Sutton in 2017. She certainly has the traditional qualifications for SCOTUS.

Ok, and I know lots of Sutton clerks who clerked (or are going to clerk) for Sutton straight. What does your anecdote add that wasn't played out in this thread already?

wwwcol wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:I'll be working for one of the judges on the list in one of the upcoming terms.

Is it wrong to assume that if my Judge gets the promotion that I would have to find a new/different clerkship? It seems that a Justice would not want to have a clerk who has not yet gotten experience in an appellate court of some sort (state or federal). Or is the traditional practice to bring along the clerks to as far out as the Judge/Justice has already hired?

You're not wrong. They're not going to take a clerk w/o experience with them to the Court. It seems like the move recently has been to hire some previous Supreme Court clerks (who know the lay of the land) along with some of the judge's previous clerks.

But the new justice will usually (though not always) help re-placing the clerks and will sometimes (definitely not always) fit them in in future years.

This may be right, but (citation needed)

Yeah, not going to parse the actual list for you, but it's all here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... ted_States

My recollection is that Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan each took former Supreme Court clerks in their first terms. Alito and Roberts each took some of their former clerks back in the first few years. Sotomayor, notably, did not. (Kagan had no clerks.)

I was hired by a judge on the list after the list came out, and the judge is continuing to hire. But I have no idea what would happen to us if the judge is nominated.

Anonymous User wrote:I was hired by a judge on the list after the list came out, and the judge is continuing to hire. But I have no idea what would happen to us if the judge is nominated.

I would cross your fingers and hope you get taken on the ride of a lifetime.