SCOTUS Clerkship Movement? Forum

[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.

I wholeheartedly agree. I'm pretty conservative, and during the time in my life when I was SCOTUS gunning, I would have run over hot coals to clerk for Sotomayor. Almost every Justice has hired a counter-clerk at one point in their career (for lack of a better term there--a true "counter-clerk" is more of an intentionally hired dissenting voice, which not every off-ideology hire is). Dana Remus is a liberal Alito clerk who was White House Counsel for Biden; Trump put a conservative RBG clerk on the district bench in Kentucky. I think the majority of the people who are truly competitive for SCOTUS realize that the benefits of clerking for any of the Nine would far, far outstrip any disadvantage that would come from clerking for a justice from the "wrong" bloc.

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.

At the same time...I feel this, although I suspect liberal applicants may also be self-selecting (CT and SAA generally aren't going to interview liberals, even if they have hired the odd exception before). There's certainly a distinction between true believers and careerists in the applicant pool, but I suspect the most competitive candidates tip toward the careerist end.

[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.

I'm the anon who gave the initial 12-11 split, and also the Thapar-Sutton stats on placing with liberals. My mistake on missing these--I don't subscribe to Lat, so I was relying only on the Wikipedia lists, which appear not to be up to date with the latest hires.

I think my general point does stand--SMS, EK, and KBJ have all shown themselves willing to hire from certain conservative feeders, and BMK is in no way "reaching" to hire women who aren't ridiculously qualified.

[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.

I wholeheartedly agree. I'm pretty conservative, and during the time in my life when I was SCOTUS gunning, I would have run over hot coals to clerk for Sotomayor. Almost every Justice has hired a counter-clerk at one point in their career (for lack of a better term there--a true "counter-clerk" is more of an intentionally hired dissenting voice, which not every off-ideology hire is). Dana Remus is a liberal Alito clerk who was White House Counsel for Biden; Trump put a conservative RBG clerk on the district bench in Kentucky. I think the majority of the people who are truly competitive for SCOTUS realize that the benefits of clerking for any of the Nine would far, far outstrip any disadvantage that would come from clerking for a justice from the "wrong" bloc.

To some extent, I think it depends on what they want to do afterwards. If they plan to ride it out for at least a few years in appellate practice, the distinction may matter less to a lot of moderate-to-left applicants although I do think Dobbs changed things.

[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.

I wholeheartedly agree. I'm pretty conservative, and during the time in my life when I was SCOTUS gunning, I would have run over hot coals to clerk for Sotomayor. Almost every Justice has hired a counter-clerk at one point in their career (for lack of a better term there--a true "counter-clerk" is more of an intentionally hired dissenting voice, which not every off-ideology hire is). Dana Remus is a liberal Alito clerk who was White House Counsel for Biden; Trump put a conservative RBG clerk on the district bench in Kentucky. I think the majority of the people who are truly competitive for SCOTUS realize that the benefits of clerking for any of the Nine would far, far outstrip any disadvantage that would come from clerking for a justice from the "wrong" bloc.

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.

At the same time...I feel this, although I suspect liberal applicants may also be self-selecting (CT and SAA generally aren't going to interview liberals, even if they have hired the odd exception before). There's certainly a distinction between true believers and careerists in the applicant pool, but I suspect the most competitive candidates tip toward the careerist end.

Will just add that several liberal applicants have also just decided not to apply. I clerked for 2x liberal “feeders” (I personally don’t believe in the concept on the left these days, but my judges have sent several clerks up) and graduated top 10 at HYS with solid recs + political connections. Many of my professors and judges encouraged me to apply (especially because I happen, for reasons specific to me, would have a very good chance of getting hired by the middle three conservative justices). I just didn’t apply to the court, both because post RBG the odds have gotten worse, and because being part of the institution is a slimy and unappealing prospect. At least one of my co-clerks made the same decision (we both solemnly nodded at each other when Dobbs came down). I know several other people from my school who didn’t apply either. It isn’t so much about individual justices (oh I would clerk for EK but never JGR bc he’s a “conservative”) but more so a general view about the legitimacy and path of the institution—and how that flows down to your experience—these days.

[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.

I wholeheartedly agree. I'm pretty conservative, and during the time in my life when I was SCOTUS gunning, I would have run over hot coals to clerk for Sotomayor. Almost every Justice has hired a counter-clerk at one point in their career (for lack of a better term there--a true "counter-clerk" is more of an intentionally hired dissenting voice, which not every off-ideology hire is). Dana Remus is a liberal Alito clerk who was White House Counsel for Biden; Trump put a conservative RBG clerk on the district bench in Kentucky. I think the majority of the people who are truly competitive for SCOTUS realize that the benefits of clerking for any of the Nine would far, far outstrip any disadvantage that would come from clerking for a justice from the "wrong" bloc.

To some extent, I think it depends on what they want to do afterwards. If they plan to ride it out for at least a few years in appellate practice, the distinction may matter less to a lot of moderate-to-left applicants although I do think Dobbs changed things.

I'm not sure how big the Dobbs effect is in practice. This year is Kavanaugh's most liberal clerk group since joining SCOTUS, and the temperature should continue to go down from here. SCOTUS has had controversial decisions before (Bush v. Gore, Citizens United). Dobbs certainly matters a lot to some liberal applicants, but as others have noted those most likely to care are the least likely to be the careerist sorts who would choose to work for a conservative justice anyways.

[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.

This may be the least important point in the thread, but the new Sutton --> EK clerk was not the number 1 student (though I can see why you'd think that given the double Sears prize).

[lavarman84]

Will just add that several liberal applicants have also just decided not to apply. I clerked for 2x liberal “feeders” (I personally don’t believe in the concept on the left these days, but my judges have sent several clerks up) and graduated top 10 at HYS with solid recs + political connections. Many of my professors and judges encouraged me to apply (especially because I happen, for reasons specific to me, would have a very good chance of getting hired by the middle three conservative justices). I just didn’t apply to the court, both because post RBG the odds have gotten worse, and because being part of the institution is a slimy and unappealing prospect. At least one of my co-clerks made the same decision (we both solemnly nodded at each other when Dobbs came down). I know several other people from my school who didn’t apply either. It isn’t so much about individual justices (oh I would clerk for EK but never JGR bc he’s a “conservative”) but more so a general view about the legitimacy and path of the institution—and how that flows down to your experience—these days.

Hard to disagree with this perspective. As great as the experience and connections would be, I can't imagine it would be enjoyable going into your SCOTUS clerkship knowing you'll be writing dissents in basically every major case with political implications.

[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.

I wholeheartedly agree. I'm pretty conservative, and during the time in my life when I was SCOTUS gunning, I would have run over hot coals to clerk for Sotomayor. Almost every Justice has hired a counter-clerk at one point in their career (for lack of a better term there--a true "counter-clerk" is more of an intentionally hired dissenting voice, which not every off-ideology hire is). Dana Remus is a liberal Alito clerk who was White House Counsel for Biden; Trump put a conservative RBG clerk on the district bench in Kentucky. I think the majority of the people who are truly competitive for SCOTUS realize that the benefits of clerking for any of the Nine would far, far outstrip any disadvantage that would come from clerking for a justice from the "wrong" bloc.

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.

At the same time...I feel this, although I suspect liberal applicants may also be self-selecting (CT and SAA generally aren't going to interview liberals, even if they have hired the odd exception before). There's certainly a distinction between true believers and careerists in the applicant pool, but I suspect the most competitive candidates tip toward the careerist end.

Will just add that several liberal applicants have also just decided not to apply. I clerked for 2x liberal “feeders” (I personally don’t believe in the concept on the left these days, but my judges have sent several clerks up) and graduated top 10 at HYS with solid recs + political connections. Many of my professors and judges encouraged me to apply (especially because I happen, for reasons specific to me, would have a very good chance of getting hired by the middle three conservative justices). I just didn’t apply to the court, both because post RBG the odds have gotten worse, and because being part of the institution is a slimy and unappealing prospect. At least one of my co-clerks made the same decision (we both solemnly nodded at each other when Dobbs came down). I know several other people from my school who didn’t apply either. It isn’t so much about individual justices (oh I would clerk for EK but never JGR bc he’s a “conservative”) but more so a general view about the legitimacy and path of the institution—and how that flows down to your experience—these days.

Similar position here. It just sounds like a miserable experience as a liberal.

[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.

I wholeheartedly agree. I'm pretty conservative, and during the time in my life when I was SCOTUS gunning, I would have run over hot coals to clerk for Sotomayor. Almost every Justice has hired a counter-clerk at one point in their career (for lack of a better term there--a true "counter-clerk" is more of an intentionally hired dissenting voice, which not every off-ideology hire is). Dana Remus is a liberal Alito clerk who was White House Counsel for Biden; Trump put a conservative RBG clerk on the district bench in Kentucky. I think the majority of the people who are truly competitive for SCOTUS realize that the benefits of clerking for any of the Nine would far, far outstrip any disadvantage that would come from clerking for a justice from the "wrong" bloc.

To some extent, I think it depends on what they want to do afterwards. If they plan to ride it out for at least a few years in appellate practice, the distinction may matter less to a lot of moderate-to-left applicants although I do think Dobbs changed things.

I'm not sure how big the Dobbs effect is in practice. This year is Kavanaugh's most liberal clerk group since joining SCOTUS, and the temperature should continue to go down from here. SCOTUS has had controversial decisions before (Bush v. Gore, Citizens United). Dobbs certainly matters a lot to some liberal applicants, but as others have noted those most likely to care are the least likely to be the careerist sorts who would choose to work for a conservative justice anyways.

Plus it’s not like Dobbs was Shelby County to a formalist—how many people really think in their heart of hearts that Roe was correctly decided? And the liberals with that line of thought are the ones BMK and JGR are interested in hiring.

[Anonymous User]

One point that often goes overlooked is just how few openings there are at SCOTUS relative to the applicant pool. When you get down to it, there are vastly more qualified candidates than there are openings. While political pressures may change the total number of applicants to SCOTUS, or the total number applying to any particular justice, all that matters is the quality of the best four applications each justice receives. From what I've seen, Dobbs has not suppressed that quality in the least. The frustrated liberals sitting out are not preventing Kagan from filling up on Sears Prize winners and RBG Scholars, many of whom go through Srinivisan. As for the conservative justices, even though there are fewer conservative lawyers nationwide (and even fewer conservative women), there are always more than 20 promising applicants every year.

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone heard of movement for KBJ -- interviews, offers, etc.? Based on Lat's reporting, she hasn't hired for next term yet, but I find that hard to believe given that we're just a few months away.

[Anonymous User]

She's currently interviewing

[Anonymous User]

She's currently interviewing

Yep, I've also now heard of interviews. Anyone know if offers have been made?

[Anonymous User]

She's currently interviewing

Yep, I've also now heard of interviews. Anyone know if offers have been made?

Yep, she's full. She pulled most from the Ninth Circuit.

[Anonymous User]

She's currently interviewing

Yep, I've also now heard of interviews. Anyone know if offers have been made?

Yep, she's full. She pulled most from the Ninth Circuit.

Any more details you can provide?

[Anonymous User]

She's currently interviewing

Yep, I've also now heard of interviews. Anyone know if offers have been made?

Yep, she's full. She pulled most from the Ninth Circuit.

Any more details you can provide?

Gotta pony up the $$$ to Lat's newsletter

[Anonymous User]

Damn really?? Has she sent out rejections to people she interviewed?

[Anonymous User]

She's currently interviewing

Yep, I've also now heard of interviews. Anyone know if offers have been made?

Yep, she's full. She pulled most from the Ninth Circuit.

Any more details you can provide?

Gotta pony up the $$$ to Lat's newsletter

I don't think Lat has posted yet?

[Anonymous User]

When do liberal justices start to hire again? December?

[Anonymous User]

Lat never posted anything about KBJ’s recent clerks. No clue where this information is coming from.

[Anonymous User]

Lat never posted anything about KBJ’s recent clerks. No clue where this information is coming from.

Yes he did.

[Anonymous User]

Lat tweeted on his "Supreme Ambitions" twitter that KBJ is filled up and he would post the names in a week. KBJ said she would open up again this fall.

Anyone know when the other justices open up again?

[Anonymous User]

Damn really?? Has she sent out rejections to people she interviewed?

Yep.

[Anonymous User]

Damn really?? Has she sent out rejections to people she interviewed?

Yep.

Considering throwing my hat in the ring in a few years (I haven't even started my first clerkship yet). I'm curious if those who interviewed or did the writing component but didn't get invited to interview (assuming that happened) would reapply to Justice Jackson? Or is it one of those things where once you've been considered but not selected, you just move on?

[Anonymous User]

She's currently interviewing

Yep, I've also now heard of interviews. Anyone know if offers have been made?

Yep, she's full. She pulled most from the Ninth Circuit.

Any more details you can provide?

Yes. Berzon/Stein; Kruger/Koh; Fletcher; K.N. Moore/Ellison.