SCOTUS Clerkship Movement? Forum

[Anonymous User]

How do the Justices even find out about religious background? Do recommenders flag this or something?

Some schools, like Michigan, have a Catholic Law Students Association or Jewish Law Students Association. People put it on their resume.

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone heard of KBJ extending interviews or offers after the completion of her "writing competition" more than ten days ago?

[Anonymous User]

Sotomayor is full for 2023. Three HLS hires plus the one BU hire discussed further up thread.

[Anonymous User]

Sotomayor is full for 2023. Three HLS hires plus the one BU hire discussed further up thread.

Which lower court judges did the two new HLS hires clerk for?

[Chokenhauer]

Sotomayor is full for 2023. Three HLS hires plus the one BU hire discussed further up thread.

So much for educational diversity.

[Anonymous User]

Sotomayor is full for 2023. Three HLS hires plus the one BU hire discussed further up thread.

So much for educational diversity.

It's better than her continuing to hire a bunch from Yale.

[Anonymous User]

Sotomayor is full for 2023. Three HLS hires plus the one BU hire discussed further up thread.

Which lower court judges did the two new HLS hires clerk for?

Calabresi (CA2)
Carter (SDNY); Lohier (CA2)

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know if KBJ has hired for next term?

[Anonymous User]

Can someone post the Lat list from today?

[throwawayt14]

Can someone post the Lat list from today?

Because he earns his livelihood from this work, you should pay him if you want to know.

[Anonymous User]

Can someone post the Lat list from today?

Because he earns his livelihood from this work, you should pay him if you want to know.

yeah but hes kinda annoying

[Anonymous User]

Can someone post the Lat list from today?

If you email him and just introduce yourself, he'll give you a free subscription. I did and he was super nice and cordial about it. Albeit I'm a young lawyer not in biglaw, so maybe if you're an older lawyer or in biglaw he may just ask you to pay for it (which IMO is totally reasonable as the other commenter noted).

[Anonymous User]

Can someone post the Lat list from today?

Just counted the judges with multiple feeds in the coming Terms. 9 clerks from Thapar and Katsas, 5 clerks from Pryor, Oldham, Grant, Srinivasan, Friedrich, 4 clerks from Bibas and Newsom, 3 clerks from Engelmayer and Kovner, and 2 clerks from Cabranes, Boasberg, Walker, Sutton, Pillard, Wilkinson.

Harvard and Yale duking it out with about the same number of clerks but Yale still has the huge advantage on a per capita basis.

[Anonymous User]

Can someone post the Lat list from today?

Just counted the judges with multiple feeds in the coming Terms. 9 clerks from Thapar and Katsas, 5 clerks from Pryor, Oldham, Grant, Srinivasan, Friedrich, 4 clerks from Bibas and Newsom, 3 clerks from Engelmayer and Kovner, and 2 clerks from Cabranes, Boasberg, Walker, Sutton, Pillard, Wilkinson.

Harvard and Yale duking it out with about the same number of clerks but Yale still has the huge advantage on a per capita basis.

I’m curious if the increasingly minimal odds of SCOTUS for liberal applicants who don’t win the Srinivasan/Boasberg lottery will affect what clerkships people take. Of course some liberals get SCOTUS without clerking for those judges, but there doesn’t seem to be much reason to believe that anyone else (within the general genre of “highly selective judges”) substantially increases your odds anymore. E.g. Engelmayer typically isn’t all that big of a feeder, but popped up as second only to Srinivasan this time around, but there’s only one liberal feed from the entire Ninth Circuit.

[Anonymous User]

I think a lot of liberal applicants will start throwing their hat in the ring for Sutton/Thapar/Wilkinson/Bibas clerkships to pair with a liberal judge if they can't get Srinivasan/Boasberg. Having a Thapar or Bibas on your side would open up the Chief (maybe BK too if you're a woman) and it might help with Kagan because you could say that you know how to work with conservatives. It would probably hurt with Jackson or Sotomayor.

[Anonymous User]

I think a lot of liberal applicants will start throwing their hat in the ring for Sutton/Thapar/Wilkinson/Bibas clerkships to pair with a liberal judge if they can't get Srinivasan/Boasberg. Having a Thapar or Bibas on your side would open up the Chief (maybe BK too if you're a woman) and it might help with Kagan because you could say that you know how to work with conservatives. It would probably hurt with Jackson or Sotomayor.

These "BMK mostly hires women" are red-flaggish because it suggests the poster hasn't followed BMK's hiring since his famous first class of 4 women. Since that first class, BMK has hired 12 women and 11 men.

Also, SMS has hired 3 times from Thapar (once each in conjunction with Sutton, Sri, and Kozinski) and one additional time from Sutton. She is the only liberal Thapar has fed to so far, and the only liberal Sutton has fed to more than once (he has fed one time each to RBG, SGB, and EK). All of the liberals do occasionally hire from these types of conservative judges though--e.g. EK has hired from Griffith, SMS from Livingston, and KBJ has a current clerk from Tymkovich. So in theory, a judge in this category opens up all 9 of the Justices to you, but realistically, just about any clerk will have disqualified themself from consideration for at least 1 or 2 Justices by the time they begin a feeder clerkship based on what else is (or is not) on their resume.

[Anonymous User]

I think a lot of liberal applicants will start throwing their hat in the ring for Sutton/Thapar/Wilkinson/Bibas clerkships to pair with a liberal judge if they can't get Srinivasan/Boasberg. Having a Thapar or Bibas on your side would open up the Chief (maybe BK too if you're a woman) and it might help with Kagan because you could say that you know how to work with conservatives. It would probably hurt with Jackson or Sotomayor.

These "BMK mostly hires women" are red-flaggish because it suggests the poster hasn't followed BMK's hiring since his famous first class of 4 women. Since that first class, BMK has hired 12 women and 11 men.

Also, SMS has hired 3 times from Thapar (once each in conjunction with Sutton, Sri, and Kozinski) and one additional time from Sutton. She is the only liberal Thapar has fed to so far, and the only liberal Sutton has fed to more than once (he has fed one time each to RBG, SGB, and EK). All of the liberals do occasionally hire from these types of conservative judges though--e.g. EK has hired from Griffith, SMS from Livingston, and KBJ has a current clerk from Tymkovich. So in theory, a judge in this category opens up all 9 of the Justices to you, but realistically, just about any clerk will have disqualified themself from consideration for at least 1 or 2 Justices by the time they begin a feeder clerkship based on what else is (or is not) on their resume.

For BK to hire 12 women and 11 men given the gender imbalance in Fed Soc suggests that he's giving massive affirmative action to conservative women; he's hiring liberal women at a higher rate than liberal men; or some combination of the two.

I'm not sure the exact breakdown of men to women in Fed Soc but I wouldn't be surprised if it's anywhere from 60/40 to 90/10. As for Kagan, according to David Lat, she's got one more Sutton and one Thapar clerk in the pipeline. I agree that Sutton etc aren't going to be big lib feeders. You'd still rather Srinivasan than Sutton of course. And you probably still want Pillard over Sutton. But if you're looking at some very competitive liberal judge who feeds less than Pillard but is still great (e.g., a Higginson or Friedland), then a conservative judge who feeds to BK and the Chief might be a savvy move.

These are all big generalizations though and there will be some doors closed in liberal circles if you clerk for a conservative judge and vice versa.

[Anonymous User]

For BK to hire 12 women and 11 men given the gender imbalance in Fed Soc suggests that he's giving massive affirmative action to conservative women; he's hiring liberal women at a higher rate than liberal men; or some combination of the two.

I'm not sure the exact breakdown of men to women in Fed Soc but I wouldn't be surprised if it's anywhere from 60/40 to 90/10. As for Kagan, according to David Lat, she's got one more Sutton and one Thapar clerk in the pipeline. I agree that Sutton etc aren't going to be big lib feeders. You'd still rather Srinivasan than Sutton of course. And you probably still want Pillard over Sutton. But if you're looking at some very competitive liberal judge who feeds less than Pillard but is still great (e.g., a Higginson or Friedland), then a conservative judge who feeds to BK and the Chief might be a savvy move.

These are all big generalizations though and there will be some doors closed in liberal circles if you clerk for a conservative judge and vice versa.

Discounting BK's first class, he's actually hired 13, not 12, women.

As of right now, of the women Kavanaugh has hired after his first class:

2 were the number 1 student at Notre Dame (and 1 was EIC of the Law Review).
1 was the number 1 student at Virginia.
1 was the number 1 student at NYU.
1 was the number 1 student at Georgetown.
1 was a Phillips Fellow.
2 were Yale Fedsoc presidents.
1 is Amy Chua's daughter.
2 are military veterans (this includes Amy Chua's daughter).

The 3 whose accomplishments aren't easy to quantify all went to Yale. Pretty clear it takes more than 'being female' to be hired in any case. I also doubt all of them are FedSoc, and I'm almost certain at least 1 is quite liberal.

FWIW Kagan's new clerk from Sutton was the number 1 student at Harvard, and is likely conservative.

[Anonymous User]

According to Lat, Sutton actually has 2 more feeds to Kagan (1 each the next two terms). I don't know if they're liberal or conservative, but this proves a previous poster's point that the top non-ideological FedSoc feeders (Thapar, Wilkinson, Bibas, etc.) could become bigger draws for moderates and liberals in the years to come, especially ones without the background or demographics to get a clerkship with Sotomayor or Jackson.

[Anonymous User]

I think a lot of liberal applicants will start throwing their hat in the ring for Sutton/Thapar/Wilkinson/Bibas clerkships to pair with a liberal judge if they can't get Srinivasan/Boasberg. Having a Thapar or Bibas on your side would open up the Chief (maybe BK too if you're a woman) and it might help with Kagan because you could say that you know how to work with conservatives. It would probably hurt with Jackson or Sotomayor.

These "BMK mostly hires women" are red-flaggish because it suggests the poster hasn't followed BMK's hiring since his famous first class of 4 women. Since that first class, BMK has hired 12 women and 11 men.

Also, SMS has hired 3 times from Thapar (once each in conjunction with Sutton, Sri, and Kozinski) and one additional time from Sutton. She is the only liberal Thapar has fed to so far, and the only liberal Sutton has fed to more than once (he has fed one time each to RBG, SGB, and EK). All of the liberals do occasionally hire from these types of conservative judges though--e.g. EK has hired from Griffith, SMS from Livingston, and KBJ has a current clerk from Tymkovich. So in theory, a judge in this category opens up all 9 of the Justices to you, but realistically, just about any clerk will have disqualified themself from consideration for at least 1 or 2 Justices by the time they begin a feeder clerkship based on what else is (or is not) on their resume.

For BK to hire 12 women and 11 men given the gender imbalance in Fed Soc suggests that he's giving massive affirmative action to conservative women; he's hiring liberal women at a higher rate than liberal men; or some combination of the two.

I'm not sure the exact breakdown of men to women in Fed Soc but I wouldn't be surprised if it's anywhere from 60/40 to 90/10. As for Kagan, according to David Lat, she's got one more Sutton and one Thapar clerk in the pipeline. I agree that Sutton etc aren't going to be big lib feeders. You'd still rather Srinivasan than Sutton of course. And you probably still want Pillard over Sutton. But if you're looking at some very competitive liberal judge who feeds less than Pillard but is still great (e.g., a Higginson or Friedland), then a conservative judge who feeds to BK and the Chief might be a savvy move.

These are all big generalizations though and there will be some doors closed in liberal circles if you clerk for a conservative judge and vice versa.

I wouldn't choose a moderate conservative judge over one of the super selective liberal judges on the Ninth Circuit (e.g. Fletcher, Friedland, Watford if he were staying) as a prospective clerk in the off chance that it helps slightly for SCOTUS. Fletcher and Friedland have very impressive professional and former-clerk networks and, if you're a liberal interested in doing liberal things, being tapped into those networks is very helpful.

Moreover, at a certain point, getting a SCOTUS clerkship comes down to the applicant. I know of several people who've recently clerked for Friedland/Fletcher/Watford who post-RBG's death all interviewed with the liberal justices but just weren't able to seal the deal. If you get one of those prestigious liberal clerkships and want SCOTUS, you'll almost certainly get an interview with at least some of the liberal justices. But that doesn't mean the justices will hire you. Nothing can guarantee that. And you should go clerk for the best judge you can clerk for, not make judge choices based on the marginal-at-best increase in SCOTUS chances that looks only at a very limited sample size of raw numbers in a market that has drastically changed (with, for example, liberal clerks simply opting out of SCOTUS or choosing not to apply to Roberts or Kavanaugh even though they would be competitive for them).

[Anonymous User]

For BK to hire 12 women and 11 men given the gender imbalance in Fed Soc suggests that he's giving massive affirmative action to conservative women; he's hiring liberal women at a higher rate than liberal men; or some combination of the two.

I'm not sure the exact breakdown of men to women in Fed Soc but I wouldn't be surprised if it's anywhere from 60/40 to 90/10. As for Kagan, according to David Lat, she's got one more Sutton and one Thapar clerk in the pipeline. I agree that Sutton etc aren't going to be big lib feeders. You'd still rather Srinivasan than Sutton of course. And you probably still want Pillard over Sutton. But if you're looking at some very competitive liberal judge who feeds less than Pillard but is still great (e.g., a Higginson or Friedland), then a conservative judge who feeds to BK and the Chief might be a savvy move.

These are all big generalizations though and there will be some doors closed in liberal circles if you clerk for a conservative judge and vice versa.

Discounting BK's first class, he's actually hired 13, not 12, women.

As of right now, of the women Kavanaugh has hired after his first class:

2 were the number 1 student at Notre Dame (and 1 was EIC of the Law Review).
1 was the number 1 student at Virginia.
1 was the number 1 student at NYU.
1 was the number 1 student at Georgetown.
1 was a Phillips Fellow.
2 were Yale Fedsoc presidents.
1 is Amy Chua's daughter.
2 are military veterans (this includes Amy Chua's daughter).

The 3 whose accomplishments aren't easy to quantify all went to Yale. Pretty clear it takes more than 'being female' to be hired in any case. I also doubt all of them are FedSoc, and I'm almost certain at least 1 is quite liberal.

FWIW Kagan's new clerk from Sutton was the number 1 student at Harvard, and is likely conservative.

Just as a really random data point, I knew a judge who pretty much like clockwork hired a woman one year and a man the next (they also had a career clerk, hence only hiring one person). They never said anything to suggest that this was a policy, but the career clerk had observed it for like 10 years. I think there are enough qualified women out there that if you want to try to hire relatively equal numbers of women/men, you're not exactly scraping the bottom of the barrel.

[Anonymous User]

I think a lot of liberal applicants will start throwing their hat in the ring for Sutton/Thapar/Wilkinson/Bibas clerkships to pair with a liberal judge if they can't get Srinivasan/Boasberg. Having a Thapar or Bibas on your side would open up the Chief (maybe BK too if you're a woman) and it might help with Kagan because you could say that you know how to work with conservatives. It would probably hurt with Jackson or Sotomayor.

These "BMK mostly hires women" are red-flaggish because it suggests the poster hasn't followed BMK's hiring since his famous first class of 4 women. Since that first class, BMK has hired 12 women and 11 men.

Also, SMS has hired 3 times from Thapar (once each in conjunction with Sutton, Sri, and Kozinski) and one additional time from Sutton. She is the only liberal Thapar has fed to so far, and the only liberal Sutton has fed to more than once (he has fed one time each to RBG, SGB, and EK). All of the liberals do occasionally hire from these types of conservative judges though--e.g. EK has hired from Griffith, SMS from Livingston, and KBJ has a current clerk from Tymkovich. So in theory, a judge in this category opens up all 9 of the Justices to you, but realistically, just about any clerk will have disqualified themself from consideration for at least 1 or 2 Justices by the time they begin a feeder clerkship based on what else is (or is not) on their resume.

For BK to hire 12 women and 11 men given the gender imbalance in Fed Soc suggests that he's giving massive affirmative action to conservative women; he's hiring liberal women at a higher rate than liberal men; or some combination of the two.

I'm not sure the exact breakdown of men to women in Fed Soc but I wouldn't be surprised if it's anywhere from 60/40 to 90/10. As for Kagan, according to David Lat, she's got one more Sutton and one Thapar clerk in the pipeline. I agree that Sutton etc aren't going to be big lib feeders. You'd still rather Srinivasan than Sutton of course. And you probably still want Pillard over Sutton. But if you're looking at some very competitive liberal judge who feeds less than Pillard but is still great (e.g., a Higginson or Friedland), then a conservative judge who feeds to BK and the Chief might be a savvy move.

These are all big generalizations though and there will be some doors closed in liberal circles if you clerk for a conservative judge and vice versa.

I wouldn't choose a moderate conservative judge over one of the super selective liberal judges on the Ninth Circuit (e.g. Fletcher, Friedland, Watford if he were staying) as a prospective clerk in the off chance that it helps slightly for SCOTUS. Fletcher and Friedland have very impressive professional and former-clerk networks and, if you're a liberal interested in doing liberal things, being tapped into those networks is very helpful.

Moreover, at a certain point, getting a SCOTUS clerkship comes down to the applicant. I know of several people who've recently clerked for Friedland/Fletcher/Watford who post-RBG's death all interviewed with the liberal justices but just weren't able to seal the deal. If you get one of those prestigious liberal clerkships and want SCOTUS, you'll almost certainly get an interview with at least some of the liberal justices. But that doesn't mean the justices will hire you. Nothing can guarantee that. And you should go clerk for the best judge you can clerk for, not make judge choices based on the marginal-at-best increase in SCOTUS chances that looks only at a very limited sample size of raw numbers in a market that has drastically changed (with, for example, liberal clerks simply opting out of SCOTUS or choosing not to apply to Roberts or Kavanaugh even though they would be competitive for them).

I think this shows the differences in attitudes among liberal applicants. Progressives uncomfortable clerking for Roberts should almost always focus on left leaning circuit judges, especially in light of the fact that those judges place better with their preferred justices (Sotomayor and Jackson) anyways. On the other end of the spectrum, there are plenty of moderate, Clinton democrat sorts who wouldn't mind clerking for a Roberts or a Kavanaugh, especially with $400,000 on the line. On the (other) other end of the spectrum, there are probably some left wingers who would rather clerk for Gorsuch than Kagan because of his radical ideas about criminal and Native American law, but who would rather clerk with Jackson over either. These applications aren't one-size-fits-all, and maybe that's for the best for circuit judges too.

[Anonymous User]

Call me overly nihilistic or bitter or whatever, but I am not really convinced there are many liberal applicants who have gone through all the hoops necessary to get a SCOTUS clerkship (schmoozing with Professors, doing the right things, etc...) and are just only really willing to clerk for EK, SS, and KBJ. Granted, I'm sure they'd prefer those three, but if it is between BK/JR and no SCOTUS clerkship at all, they'll just clerk for BK or JR and tell themselves and their friends that they were a "counter-clerk." I'm not saying there has never existed such a person who is willing to only clerk for left-leaning Justices, but the abolitionist progressive types who would pick deep-seated principle over career are not, in my experience, doing the things they need for SCOTUS (many don't even clerk—especially for district courts—because they don't want to be involved in the carceral state). There takes some thread of moderation or careerist/gunner mindset to even get in front of these Justices as as serious candidate.

[Anonymous User]

Call me overly nihilistic or bitter or whatever, but I am not really convinced there are many liberal applicants who have gone through all the hoops necessary to get a SCOTUS clerkship (schmoozing with Professors, doing the right things, etc...) and are just only really willing to clerk for EK, SS, and KBJ. Granted, I'm sure they'd prefer those three, but if it is between BK/JR and no SCOTUS clerkship at all, they'll just clerk for BK or JR and tell themselves and their friends that they were a "counter-clerk." I'm not saying there has never existed such a person who is willing to only clerk for left-leaning Justices, but the abolitionist progressive types who would pick deep-seated principle over career are not, in my experience, doing the things they need for SCOTUS (many don't even clerk—especially for district courts—because they don't want to be involved in the carceral state). There takes some thread of moderation or careerist/gunner mindset to even get in front of these Justices as as serious candidate.

There are definitely liberal careerists who would clerk for any of the justices if it meant they got to be a SCOTUS clerk. Without giving too much info away that would out me, several of these people have clerked or are/will be clerking for Srinivasan. For whatever reason (and maybe this is just random), it seems like the Fletcher and Friedland people I am aware of who have interviewed for SCOTUS haven't been willing to apply across the aisle. Again, these are tiny sample sizes. But that is exactly why you can't pick a judge based on SCOTUS feeds. Too many unknowns that bear on the ultimate number of raw feeds reflected in each SCOTUS clerk class.

[Anonymous User]

Call me overly nihilistic or bitter or whatever, but I am not really convinced there are many liberal applicants who have gone through all the hoops necessary to get a SCOTUS clerkship (schmoozing with Professors, doing the right things, etc...) and are just only really willing to clerk for EK, SS, and KBJ. Granted, I'm sure they'd prefer those three, but if it is between BK/JR and no SCOTUS clerkship at all, they'll just clerk for BK or JR and tell themselves and their friends that they were a "counter-clerk." I'm not saying there has never existed such a person who is willing to only clerk for left-leaning Justices, but the abolitionist progressive types who would pick deep-seated principle over career are not, in my experience, doing the things they need for SCOTUS (many don't even clerk—especially for district courts—because they don't want to be involved in the carceral state). There takes some thread of moderation or careerist/gunner mindset to even get in front of these Justices as as serious candidate.

Not sure I can say there are "many liberal applicants" who fall into this bucket, but of the libs I know who've clerked or interviewed (admittedly only a handful), the majority have applied to either only the liberal Justices or the liberal Justices + the Chief. It's common for libs not to apply to BK specifically, though that may fade with time. It's not necessarily "deep-seated principle" so much as that if you're actually liberal, $400K may well be outweighed by the personal guilt and professional stigma of clerking for someone who, for example, voted to overturn Roe.

I would agree with the previous poster that Srinivasan types are more likely to be agnostic about this than people who clerk for a more progressive judge.