SCOTUS Clerkship Movement? Forum

[Anonymous User]

This is great information/insight - would you be willing to rip similar anecdote based summaries of the liberal bloc's hiring patterns? Had a few friends go through the process but not enough for any sort of pattern recognition

The short answer is no one knows for KBJ, and for Kagan and Sotomayor, your best chance is to get top grades at Yale or Harvard and then clerk for liberal feeders.

Sotomayor almost certainly looks for public interesty oriented people as well.

Sotomayor also flexes more on the usual credentials than Kagan, who’s probably the snobbiest justice

[Anonymous User]

This is great information/insight - would you be willing to rip similar anecdote based summaries of the liberal bloc's hiring patterns? Had a few friends go through the process but not enough for any sort of pattern recognition

The short answer is no one knows for KBJ, and for Kagan and Sotomayor, your best chance is to get top grades at Yale or Harvard and then clerk for liberal feeders.

Are there prominent "liberal feeders" anymore? Seems like all the prominent feeders (thinking Sri) are willing to flex on ideology to the point of being apolitical (to the extent someone is not far right)

Depends on your cutoff for a feeder. Lohier and Nathan are certainly ideology-sensitive. Nathan hasn’t really fed much before but is very close with KBJ and hired some of her clerks, so she probably will feed a good amount (insofar as any liberal not named Srinivasan feeds).

I’m not really plugged into which Biden appointees beyond Nathan are likely to feed, if any, but many of them seem quite ideological.

[Anonymous User]

My question is a bit off topic--but what are some considerations to take for even thinking about applying to SCOTUS?

Will have district court (not thought of as a competitive district) and circuit court clerkship (non-feeder), graduated top 1/3rd at MVP, law review, and diverse candidate. Also not in fed-soc (I identify on the opposite spectrum) but open to clerking for whoever.

I've had a few people tell me I should consider applying, but I can't tell if they are just being nice or if they are serious. Also do connections matter? I have a few connections to people who clerked on SCOTUS and/or know some of the judges personally. Should I work a few years post-clerking then consider applying?

Thanks!

To give you an honest, if disappointing, answer, you are not a realistic candidate for SCOTUS. There are only three liberal Justices and absent exceptionally compelling circumstances, you would need to be in the top 5% at YHS to even be in the running. The Chief hires some liberals too, but is extremely demanding in terms of academic pedigree--think top 3-5 people at Yale or Harvard (or occasionally Stanford or Chicago). As a reference point, it is uncommon for even the #1 student at Michigan, Virginia, or Penn to clerk at the Court, much less someone just in the top 1/3. For the conservative Justices, I do not believe there is a single clerk in the upcoming three Terms that did not clerk for at least one conservative feeder judge (i.e., a judge who has fed multiple clerks in the last 5 years).

Not the OP, but similar off topic question. Do the other conservative justices require truly exceptional academic credentials (say top 5% at a T6 or top 3-5 people at the rest of the T14) as well ? Or do they relax the grades a bit for someone who snagged the right clerkships with semi-feeder or feeder conservative judges? I guess I'm just wondering if like BK or ACB would be more likely to hire a conservative applicant coming from a conservative feeder with great but not exceptional grades, or a moderate applicant coming from a liberal semi-feeder with exceptional grades.

I know this is probably not an answerable question, but I'm curious to see if anyone has any sense of this.

The former. There are some applicants to get SCOTUS clerkships despite not having sterling grades on both sides of the “aisle” (most visibly non-magna students at schools with Latin honors systems). But conservative justices hiring from liberal semi-feeders is basically not a thing afaik. Having exceptional grades is not enough for a SCOTUS clerkship if you’re liberal, especially if you’re a liberal white man who isn’t at YH.

It's hard to generalize across the conservative justices. Here are my observations, after seeing many friends go through this process:

Roberts. Not at all ideological. Usually has 2-3 liberals per term. Extremely credential conscious. Looks for top students at top schools (especially Harvard, Yale, and Chicago) with top clerkships.

Thomas. Extremely ideological. Every so often a liberal slips through - usually with ambiguous politics and personal connections to "Thomasworld." Not realistic.

Alito. Rarely hires liberals. Has had some counterclerks over the years (including Biden's former White House Counsel, Dana Remus). May be willing to take a flyer on a Christian-Democrat type or on a 3rd Circuit clerk with a moving life story and an interest in public service.

Gorsuch. Looks for off-the-beaten-path clerks. He occasionally hires counterclerks, but doesn't seek them out. As the most anti-establishment justice, he's a natural fit for a civil libertarian with a penchant for originalism.

Kavanaugh. Similar to Roberts, except more emphasis on connections and slightly less on grades. Some terms he has 0 liberals; some terms he has 2-3. The liberals he hires are all moderate, DC-insider sorts.

Barrett. Similar to Alito, except more interested in moderate conservatives than firebrands. Occasionally hires liberals, but not likely to snap up a liberal semi-feeder clerk solely on the basis of grades. Personality and fit matter more.

Kennedy. Now hires almost solely on the basis of connections. Usually hires a liberal or libertarian clerk and loans to Kavanaugh or Gorsuch.

To summarize, of the conservative justices Roberts is the only one who regularly hires liberals solely based on exceptional grades. Other conservative justices may still be in play, but only if 1. you're the right type of liberal and 2. you have the right background, interests, and connections.

To that end, if you're a liberal open to clerking for a conservative SCOTUS justice you should try to counterclerk for a conservative feeder rather than a liberal semi-feeder. Kavanaugh or Gorsuch will feel much better hiring you if someone like Thapar, Wilkinson, or Sutton assures them that, in addition to being brilliant, you're trustworthy and are able to work well in a conservative environment.

Just adding my two cents as someone looking outside in but with some friends who've clerked. These are all generalizations but unsurprisingly the Justices tend to look for people who are like them.

Chief, Alito, and Kavanaugh tend to like people with platinum resumes. Alito likes the credentialed Ivy Leaguer who is extremely conservative (think the guy who went to Princeton undergrad, worked for Robby George, and then Yale Law) while the Chief and Kavanaugh like more moderate/Establishment types. Alito and Kavanaugh like Yale while the Chief likes Harvard.

They all put a thumb on the scale for female applicants and Kavanaugh leads the way on that by far (it's a joke in certain circles). Barrett likes Midwesterners who seem really nice and down-to-earth. She likes people with Notre Dame connections too. Thomas puts a lot of stock into whether you clerked for someone in his orbit, whether it's a former clerk like Katsas or Rao or a trusted insider like Pryor or Thapar. Gorsuch likes academics and libertarian-leaning law geeks. Connections goes a long way with all of them because the conservative world is small and everyone knows everyone.

[Anonymous User]

My question is a bit off topic--but what are some considerations to take for even thinking about applying to SCOTUS?

Will have district court (not thought of as a competitive district) and circuit court clerkship (non-feeder), graduated top 1/3rd at MVP, law review, and diverse candidate. Also not in fed-soc (I identify on the opposite spectrum) but open to clerking for whoever.

I've had a few people tell me I should consider applying, but I can't tell if they are just being nice or if they are serious. Also do connections matter? I have a few connections to people who clerked on SCOTUS and/or know some of the judges personally. Should I work a few years post-clerking then consider applying?

Thanks!

To give you an honest, if disappointing, answer, you are not a realistic candidate for SCOTUS. There are only three liberal Justices and absent exceptionally compelling circumstances, you would need to be in the top 5% at YHS to even be in the running. The Chief hires some liberals too, but is extremely demanding in terms of academic pedigree--think top 3-5 people at Yale or Harvard (or occasionally Stanford or Chicago). As a reference point, it is uncommon for even the #1 student at Michigan, Virginia, or Penn to clerk at the Court, much less someone just in the top 1/3. For the conservative Justices, I do not believe there is a single clerk in the upcoming three Terms that did not clerk for at least one conservative feeder judge (i.e., a judge who has fed multiple clerks in the last 5 years).

Not the OP, but similar off topic question. Do the other conservative justices require truly exceptional academic credentials (say top 5% at a T6 or top 3-5 people at the rest of the T14) as well ? Or do they relax the grades a bit for someone who snagged the right clerkships with semi-feeder or feeder conservative judges? I guess I'm just wondering if like BK or ACB would be more likely to hire a conservative applicant coming from a conservative feeder with great but not exceptional grades, or a moderate applicant coming from a liberal semi-feeder with exceptional grades.

I know this is probably not an answerable question, but I'm curious to see if anyone has any sense of this.

The former. There are some applicants to get SCOTUS clerkships despite not having sterling grades on both sides of the “aisle” (most visibly non-magna students at schools with Latin honors systems). But conservative justices hiring from liberal semi-feeders is basically not a thing afaik. Having exceptional grades is not enough for a SCOTUS clerkship if you’re liberal, especially if you’re a liberal white man who isn’t at YH.

It's hard to generalize across the conservative justices. Here are my observations, after seeing many friends go through this process:

Roberts. Not at all ideological. Usually has 2-3 liberals per term. Extremely credential conscious. Looks for top students at top schools (especially Harvard, Yale, and Chicago) with top clerkships.

Thomas. Extremely ideological. Every so often a liberal slips through - usually with ambiguous politics and personal connections to "Thomasworld." Not realistic.

Alito. Rarely hires liberals. Has had some counterclerks over the years (including Biden's former White House Counsel, Dana Remus). May be willing to take a flyer on a Christian-Democrat type or on a 3rd Circuit clerk with a moving life story and an interest in public service.

Gorsuch. Looks for off-the-beaten-path clerks. He occasionally hires counterclerks, but doesn't seek them out. As the most anti-establishment justice, he's a natural fit for a civil libertarian with a penchant for originalism.

Kavanaugh. Similar to Roberts, except more emphasis on connections and slightly less on grades. Some terms he has 0 liberals; some terms he has 2-3. The liberals he hires are all moderate, DC-insider sorts.

Barrett. Similar to Alito, except more interested in moderate conservatives than firebrands. Occasionally hires liberals, but not likely to snap up a liberal semi-feeder clerk solely on the basis of grades. Personality and fit matter more.

Kennedy. Now hires almost solely on the basis of connections. Usually hires a liberal or libertarian clerk and loans to Kavanaugh or Gorsuch.

To summarize, of the conservative justices Roberts is the only one who regularly hires liberals solely based on exceptional grades. Other conservative justices may still be in play, but only if 1. you're the right type of liberal and 2. you have the right background, interests, and connections.

To that end, if you're a liberal open to clerking for a conservative SCOTUS justice you should try to counterclerk for a conservative feeder rather than a liberal semi-feeder. Kavanaugh or Gorsuch will feel much better hiring you if someone like Thapar, Wilkinson, or Sutton assures them that, in addition to being brilliant, you're trustworthy and are able to work well in a conservative environment.

Just adding my two cents as someone looking outside in but with some friends who've clerked. These are all generalizations but unsurprisingly the Justices tend to look for people who are like them.

Chief, Alito, and Kavanaugh tend to like people with platinum resumes. Alito likes the credentialed Ivy Leaguer who is extremely conservative (think the guy who went to Princeton undergrad, worked for Robby George, and then Yale Law) while the Chief and Kavanaugh like more moderate/Establishment types. Alito and Kavanaugh like Yale while the Chief likes Harvard.

They all put a thumb on the scale for female applicants and Kavanaugh leads the way on that by far (it's a joke in certain circles). Barrett likes Midwesterners who seem really nice and down-to-earth. She likes people with Notre Dame connections too. Thomas puts a lot of stock into whether you clerked for someone in his orbit, whether it's a former clerk like Katsas or Rao or a trusted insider like Pryor or Thapar. Gorsuch likes academics and libertarian-leaning law geeks. Connections goes a long way with all of them because the conservative world is small and everyone knows everyone.

To add additional color, here are a few more thoughts.

Chief -> Generally looks for very, very good grades and very feedery / competitive lower court judges. Historically has had a bias towards the DC Circuit. Has a few personal friends who have outsized weight in hiring (eg Lazarus at HLS, Feinerman who just left NDIL). Less ideological gating, but tends to exclude applicants with strong political or ideological views or political connections. Mostly only hires from HLS and YLS.

Thomas -> Need to be very hard right. Need a rec from someone in his circle. Strong bias towards a few judges, like Pryor and his former clerks. Connections to the prominent religious advocacy orgs and political / legal groups in DC is a plus. Cares virtually not at all about academics or anything else beyond connections / loyalty / ideology.

Kagan -> Very picky on academic prestige, with an increasing focus on nepo babies. Relies on a small set of politically connected professors to do much of her vetting. Very biased towards Harvard and Yale. Relies on a fairly broad set of feedery judges, but judge matters less than professors / connections + grades. Screens for ideology, with a fairly tight center-left band.

Sotomayor -> Tends to hire with a bias towards applicants who have clerked for the judges and are known in the circles she’s close with in NYC. Likes public interest applicants, and has increasingly hired candidates with fairly left leaning ideology. Push for diversity in her hiring. Previously had a strong bias towards district court, one of the earliest justices to show this.

Alito -> Tends to hire hard-right loner types. Flexes more on school throughout the T14. Bias towards NJ background / CA3. Hires from conventional feeders but also a few wild cards. Hires later than most, when the more prominent / connected fedsoc applicants have already been picked.

Gorsuch -> Likes relatively academic focus, willing to hire less traditional candidates in terms of age and background. Still hires a number of conventional, connected fedsoc applicants. Has been willing to flex on grades, cares a lot about writing sample and publications. Ideologically minded in hiring but less outcome motivated than Thomas or Alito in hiring.

Kavanaugh -> Hires from a small circle of connected judges and feeders. Bias towards Harvard and Yale, although looks to a few other schools too. Women get a big bump, especially if you’re attractive. Grades are important, but not essential. Ideology is relatively less important, but tends to get center-right establishment types with some connection to the right / fedsoc but without the types of out there views as Thomas, Gorsuch, or alito clerks.

Too early to tell for Barrett and Jackson. KBJs district hiring was biased towards conventional center-left criteria (pubs, top schools, Professor recs, some focus on diversity). She told a prominent professor she has tried to, and is trying now, to hire more fairly than some other justices to democratize access, and with a more predictable timeline than some other justices. Barrett seems to hire somewhat between Alito and Kavanaugh - bias towards Catholic applicants, from her region / circuit (Midwest), who are center-right, relatively lower profile, and needier.

[Anonymous User]

The idea that Thomas doesn’t care at all about academics is absurd and a red flag for that post, though some of that sounds right. There are some outliers (which is not unique to him) but his clerks are generally magna/summa from upper T14s or summa from flagship state schools, not out of place. And his screeners are really, really tough.

[Anonymous User]

The idea that Thomas doesn’t care at all about academics is absurd and a red flag for that post, though some of that sounds right. There are some outliers (which is not unique to him) but his clerks are generally magna/summa from upper T14s or summa from flagship state schools, not out of place. And his screeners are really, really tough.

The previous poster more or less just rehashed lazy stereotypes, I wouldn't take any of it particularly seriously.

Just pointing out the wrong statements per judge:

Roberts - He hires right wing students all the time (Josh Hawley?). I know 5 hired in the past 4 years off the top of my head. He just does not compromise on grades at all.

Thomas - His selectors (who make most of the decisions, Thomas rarely doesn't hire anyone who gets to an interview with him) do care about grades.

Kagan - Simply hiring AG Garland's daughter does not mean that she's increasing her focus on nepotistic hires (of which there are far, far more on the conservative side). I can only think of 2.

Alito - "hard right loner types?" Wtf lol. He has more variance in who he hires from because he interviews a lot of students, and interviews very late compared to the rest of the justices.

Kavanaugh - lmao. By far the most nepotistic in hiring (and it isn't even close) though.

[Anonymous User]

The idea that Thomas doesn’t care at all about academics is absurd and a red flag for that post, though some of that sounds right. There are some outliers (which is not unique to him) but his clerks are generally magna/summa from upper T14s or summa from flagship state schools, not out of place. And his screeners are really, really tough.

Bingo. The entire post reads like a 0L rehashing what he or she has read on TLS about the Justices' hiring, some of which is correct. The Thomas and Kavanaugh items are the biggest red flags.

Thomas cares enormously about academics but, like Sotomayor, is quite willing to look outside of YLS/HLS and even outside of the T14 to hire people he finds academically interesting. I'd go so far as to say that publishing may be more helpful for a Thomas applicant than for the more YLS/HLS-centric Justices (CJR, EK, BMK).

[Anonymous User]

https://www.bu.edu/law/record/articles/ ... igh-court/

Profile on one of Sotomayor’s latest hires.

[Anonymous User]

https://www.bu.edu/law/record/articles/ ... igh-court/

Profile on one of Sotomayor’s latest hires.

No hate at all, but kinda surprised someone who graduated cum laude at a non-T14, without main journal, with no super significant publications and was working in big law/not PI was able to pull a scotus clerkship

There is hope for me yet lmao

[nixy]

https://www.bu.edu/law/record/articles/ ... igh-court/

Profile on one of Sotomayor’s latest hires.

No hate at all, but kinda surprised someone who graduated cum laude at a non-T14, without main journal, with no super significant publications and was working in big law/not PI was able to pull a scotus clerkship

There is hope for me yet lmao

I mean,

Lopez-Morales has clerked for three federal judges [D.P.R., D.D.C., 2d Cir.], spent three years working as a trial attorney in the US Department of Justice’s Civil Division, and is currently a senior associate in the Supreme Court and appellate practice group at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe in Washington, DC.

and

director of the Homer Albers Prize Moot Court Competition. Lopez-Morales won that competition as a 2L, competing with his friend Jorge Torruella (’14), [First Cir] Judge [Juan] Torruella’s nephew

[Anonymous User]

https://www.bu.edu/law/record/articles/ ... igh-court/

Profile on one of Sotomayor’s latest hires.

No hate at all, but kinda surprised someone who graduated cum laude at a non-T14, without main journal, with no super significant publications and was working in big law/not PI was able to pull a scotus clerkship

There is hope for me yet lmao

Lmao I had the same thought….still holding out hope (but I figure this guy’s PR connections helped quite a bit).

[Anonymous User]

https://www.bu.edu/law/record/articles/ ... igh-court/

Profile on one of Sotomayor’s latest hires.

No hate at all, but kinda surprised someone who graduated cum laude at a non-T14, without main journal, with no super significant publications and was working in big law/not PI was able to pull a scotus clerkship

There is hope for me yet lmao

Lmao I had the same thought….still holding out hope (but I figure this guy’s PR connections helped quite a bit).

Smh and I couldnt even land an appellate clerkship as fringe magna at a T6, i guess i really just am that boring after all

[Anonymous User]

https://www.bu.edu/law/record/articles/ ... igh-court/

Profile on one of Sotomayor’s latest hires.

No hate at all, but kinda surprised someone who graduated cum laude at a non-T14, without main journal, with no super significant publications and was working in big law/not PI was able to pull a scotus clerkship

There is hope for me yet lmao

Sotomayor also recently hired a clerk without honors, LR, or a feeder from UT. Rn there is an undersupply of URM students at T14 law schools compared with the interest judges have in hiring them. A big study of diversity and clerkship hiring recently came out that found that almost all judges want more diversity, but most believe (rightly or wrongly) that competition is so fierce that it’s very difficult to to hire them unless the judge themself is diverse or has a connection.

[Anonymous User]

https://www.bu.edu/law/record/articles/ ... igh-court/

Profile on one of Sotomayor’s latest hires.

No hate at all, but kinda surprised someone who graduated cum laude at a non-T14, without main journal, with no super significant publications and was working in big law/not PI was able to pull a scotus clerkship

There is hope for me yet lmao

Sotomayor also recently hired a clerk without honors, LR, or a feeder from UT.

Were they the child of a prominent feeder judge and/or attorney general?

[Anonymous User]

https://www.bu.edu/law/record/articles/ ... igh-court/

Profile on one of Sotomayor’s latest hires.

No hate at all, but kinda surprised someone who graduated cum laude at a non-T14, without main journal, with no super significant publications and was working in big law/not PI was able to pull a scotus clerkship

There is hope for me yet lmao

Sotomayor also recently hired a clerk without honors, LR, or a feeder from UT.

Were they the child of a prominent feeder judge and/or attorney general?

No, she immigrated from Mexico as a teenager. She has a really impressive story and also worked at LDF and Kellogg, I don’t think it’s too surprising that she caught Sotomayor’s interest.

https://law.utexas.edu/news/2022/02/15/ ... sotomayor/

[lavarman84]

Respect to Sotomayor for opening the doors to people who have interesting life stories and wouldn't have received any consideration otherwise. I've always respected Thomas's willingness to hire people outside of the norm for SCOTUS clerkships. Glad Sotomayor does the same.

[Anonymous User]

It's also entirely possible these people had a bad first semester and then absolutely killed it the rest of their time in law school. Kagan has also hired at least one cum laude HLS grad who, as best I can tell, had no interesting life story or diverse background (granted, that person had clerked for feeder judges).

[nixy]

It's also entirely possible these people had a bad first semester and then absolutely killed it the rest of their time in law school. Kagan has also hired at least one cum laude HLS grad who, as best I can tell, had no interesting life story or diverse background.

Yeah, they've clearly managed to get multiple clerkships and have impressed people with their ability, regardless of what their official GPA has been.

[Chokenhauer]

Fingers crossed they start hiring from Roger Williams and Ohio Northern so that they can give ya boy a chance

[Anonymous User]

Cmon ya'll reading up on these people they seem super impressive. Ya'll can't seriously think just because someone isn't top of the class grade-wise they aren't smart. Clearly these student/recent grads caught multiple peoples' eye who believed them to be highly intelligent and worthy to put their credibility on the line for in recommending them for SCOTUS. These people would not be on Sotomayor's radar unless she heard really, really great things about them. I'm not saying the number 1 student at HLS is not also smart, but there are ways to demonstrate talent beyond just DSing every class at Harvard or whatever goes on at Yale where they figure out who has the best exams.

[Chokenhauer]

Cmon ya'll reading up on these people they seem super impressive. Ya'll can't seriously think just because someone isn't top of the class grade-wise they aren't smart. Clearly these student/recent grads caught multiple peoples' eye who believed them to be highly intelligent and worthy to put their credibility on the line for in recommending them for SCOTUS. These people would not be on Sotomayor's radar unless she heard really, really great things about them. I'm not saying the number 1 student at HLS is not also smart, but there are ways to demonstrate talent beyond just DSing every class at Harvard or whatever goes on at Yale where they figure out who has the best exams.

I am teasing. They all have very impressive backgrounds that make them worthy of clerking for SCOTUS justices.

[Anonymous User]

Has KBJ started interviewing following her writing competition?

Bump

[Anonymous User]

Cmon ya'll reading up on these people they seem super impressive. Ya'll can't seriously think just because someone isn't top of the class grade-wise they aren't smart. Clearly these student/recent grads caught multiple peoples' eye who believed them to be highly intelligent and worthy to put their credibility on the line for in recommending them for SCOTUS. These people would not be on Sotomayor's radar unless she heard really, really great things about them. I'm not saying the number 1 student at HLS is not also smart, but there are ways to demonstrate talent beyond just DSing every class at Harvard or whatever goes on at Yale where they figure out who has the best exams.

I believe at Yale the professor throws all the exams from a class down a staircase and the exam that travels the furthest gets the best "grade." If an exam gets all the way to the bottom, the student gets a Coker. I could be misremembering though, idk

[Anonymous User]

My question is a bit off topic--but what are some considerations to take for even thinking about applying to SCOTUS?

Will have district court (not thought of as a competitive district) and circuit court clerkship (non-feeder), graduated top 1/3rd at MVP, law review, and diverse candidate. Also not in fed-soc (I identify on the opposite spectrum) but open to clerking for whoever.

I've had a few people tell me I should consider applying, but I can't tell if they are just being nice or if they are serious. Also do connections matter? I have a few connections to people who clerked on SCOTUS and/or know some of the judges personally. Should I work a few years post-clerking then consider applying?

Thanks!

To give you an honest, if disappointing, answer, you are not a realistic candidate for SCOTUS. There are only three liberal Justices and absent exceptionally compelling circumstances, you would need to be in the top 5% at YHS to even be in the running. The Chief hires some liberals too, but is extremely demanding in terms of academic pedigree--think top 3-5 people at Yale or Harvard (or occasionally Stanford or Chicago). As a reference point, it is uncommon for even the #1 student at Michigan, Virginia, or Penn to clerk at the Court, much less someone just in the top 1/3. For the conservative Justices, I do not believe there is a single clerk in the upcoming three Terms that did not clerk for at least one conservative feeder judge (i.e., a judge who has fed multiple clerks in the last 5 years).

Not the OP, but similar off topic question. Do the other conservative justices require truly exceptional academic credentials (say top 5% at a T6 or top 3-5 people at the rest of the T14) as well ? Or do they relax the grades a bit for someone who snagged the right clerkships with semi-feeder or feeder conservative judges? I guess I'm just wondering if like BK or ACB would be more likely to hire a conservative applicant coming from a conservative feeder with great but not exceptional grades, or a moderate applicant coming from a liberal semi-feeder with exceptional grades.

I know this is probably not an answerable question, but I'm curious to see if anyone has any sense of this.

The former. There are some applicants to get SCOTUS clerkships despite not having sterling grades on both sides of the “aisle” (most visibly non-magna students at schools with Latin honors systems). But conservative justices hiring from liberal semi-feeders is basically not a thing afaik. Having exceptional grades is not enough for a SCOTUS clerkship if you’re liberal, especially if you’re a liberal white man who isn’t at YH.

It's hard to generalize across the conservative justices. Here are my observations, after seeing many friends go through this process:

Roberts. Not at all ideological. Usually has 2-3 liberals per term. Extremely credential conscious. Looks for top students at top schools (especially Harvard, Yale, and Chicago) with top clerkships.

Thomas. Extremely ideological. Every so often a liberal slips through - usually with ambiguous politics and personal connections to "Thomasworld." Not realistic.

Alito. Rarely hires liberals. Has had some counterclerks over the years (including Biden's former White House Counsel, Dana Remus). May be willing to take a flyer on a Christian-Democrat type or on a 3rd Circuit clerk with a moving life story and an interest in public service.

Gorsuch. Looks for off-the-beaten-path clerks. He occasionally hires counterclerks, but doesn't seek them out. As the most anti-establishment justice, he's a natural fit for a civil libertarian with a penchant for originalism.

Kavanaugh. Similar to Roberts, except more emphasis on connections and slightly less on grades. Some terms he has 0 liberals; some terms he has 2-3. The liberals he hires are all moderate, DC-insider sorts.

Barrett. Similar to Alito, except more interested in moderate conservatives than firebrands. Occasionally hires liberals, but not likely to snap up a liberal semi-feeder clerk solely on the basis of grades. Personality and fit matter more.

Kennedy. Now hires almost solely on the basis of connections. Usually hires a liberal or libertarian clerk and loans to Kavanaugh or Gorsuch.

To summarize, of the conservative justices Roberts is the only one who regularly hires liberals solely based on exceptional grades. Other conservative justices may still be in play, but only if 1. you're the right type of liberal and 2. you have the right background, interests, and connections.

To that end, if you're a liberal open to clerking for a conservative SCOTUS justice you should try to counterclerk for a conservative feeder rather than a liberal semi-feeder. Kavanaugh or Gorsuch will feel much better hiring you if someone like Thapar, Wilkinson, or Sutton assures them that, in addition to being brilliant, you're trustworthy and are able to work well in a conservative environment.

Just adding my two cents as someone looking outside in but with some friends who've clerked. These are all generalizations but unsurprisingly the Justices tend to look for people who are like them.

Chief, Alito, and Kavanaugh tend to like people with platinum resumes. Alito likes the credentialed Ivy Leaguer who is extremely conservative (think the guy who went to Princeton undergrad, worked for Robby George, and then Yale Law) while the Chief and Kavanaugh like more moderate/Establishment types. Alito and Kavanaugh like Yale while the Chief likes Harvard.

They all put a thumb on the scale for female applicants and Kavanaugh leads the way on that by far (it's a joke in certain circles). Barrett likes Midwesterners who seem really nice and down-to-earth. She likes people with Notre Dame connections too. Thomas puts a lot of stock into whether you clerked for someone in his orbit, whether it's a former clerk like Katsas or Rao or a trusted insider like Pryor or Thapar. Gorsuch likes academics and libertarian-leaning law geeks. Connections goes a long way with all of them because the conservative world is small and everyone knows everyone.

To add additional color, here are a few more thoughts.

Chief -> Generally looks for very, very good grades and very feedery / competitive lower court judges. Historically has had a bias towards the DC Circuit. Has a few personal friends who have outsized weight in hiring (eg Lazarus at HLS, Feinerman who just left NDIL). Less ideological gating, but tends to exclude applicants with strong political or ideological views or political connections. Mostly only hires from HLS and YLS.

Thomas -> Need to be very hard right. Need a rec from someone in his circle. Strong bias towards a few judges, like Pryor and his former clerks. Connections to the prominent religious advocacy orgs and political / legal groups in DC is a plus. Cares virtually not at all about academics or anything else beyond connections / loyalty / ideology.

Kagan -> Very picky on academic prestige, with an increasing focus on nepo babies. Relies on a small set of politically connected professors to do much of her vetting. Very biased towards Harvard and Yale. Relies on a fairly broad set of feedery judges, but judge matters less than professors / connections + grades. Screens for ideology, with a fairly tight center-left band.

Sotomayor -> Tends to hire with a bias towards applicants who have clerked for the judges and are known in the circles she’s close with in NYC. Likes public interest applicants, and has increasingly hired candidates with fairly left leaning ideology. Push for diversity in her hiring. Previously had a strong bias towards district court, one of the earliest justices to show this.

Alito -> Tends to hire hard-right loner types. Flexes more on school throughout the T14. Bias towards NJ background / CA3. Hires from conventional feeders but also a few wild cards. Hires later than most, when the more prominent / connected fedsoc applicants have already been picked.

Gorsuch -> Likes relatively academic focus, willing to hire less traditional candidates in terms of age and background. Still hires a number of conventional, connected fedsoc applicants. Has been willing to flex on grades, cares a lot about writing sample and publications. Ideologically minded in hiring but less outcome motivated than Thomas or Alito in hiring.

Kavanaugh -> Hires from a small circle of connected judges and feeders. Bias towards Harvard and Yale, although looks to a few other schools too. Women get a big bump, especially if you’re attractive. Grades are important, but not essential. Ideology is relatively less important, but tends to get center-right establishment types with some connection to the right / fedsoc but without the types of out there views as Thomas, Gorsuch, or alito clerks.

Too early to tell for Barrett and Jackson. KBJs district hiring was biased towards conventional center-left criteria (pubs, top schools, Professor recs, some focus on diversity). She told a prominent professor she has tried to, and is trying now, to hire more fairly than some other justices to democratize access, and with a more predictable timeline than some other justices. Barrett seems to hire somewhat between Alito and Kavanaugh - bias towards Catholic applicants, from her region / circuit (Midwest), who are center-right, relatively lower profile, and needier.

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

[throwawayt14]

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

Your recommenders usually know and your Judge will certainly know unless they take zero interest in their clerks at all. It also isn't too difficult to figure out with small talk: "Oh did you see the Chiefs play on Sunday?" "Oh yeah, I flipped it on after getting back from Mass with the family."

Many people also put signifiers in their interests and groups section.