To Clerk Again or Not to Clerk Again Forum

[Anonymous User]

HYS grad, magna-ish grades (roughly as many Ps as DS/book prizes, and 80% Hs), clerking on CA2/CA9/CADC for a non-Trump Republican judge who’s sent a couple of folks to SCOTUS but doesn’t regularly feed. Transactional background but am planning to switch to litigation after the clerkship with an eye toward corporate academia.

I prioritized geography when applying to clerkships and wasn’t too focused on feeder status. Now, I’m wondering if it makes sense to shoot for a clerkship with a feeder.

The issue is that, while I’ve got a number of strong faculty recommenders, I didn’t cultivate ties with the McConnells/Amars of the world, since I was more oriented toward corporate law in law school. So, while I’ve got respected profs to make calls, they won’t be the judge’s best friend.

Does it make sense for someone with business law (e.g., antitrust, arbitration, bankruptcy) interests to do another appellate clerkship? And if so, do I stand a chance with feeders? Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

HYS grad, magna-ish grades (roughly as many Ps as DS/book prizes, and 80% Hs), clerking on CA2/CA9/CADC for a non-Trump Republican judge who’s sent a couple of folks to SCOTUS but doesn’t regularly feed. Transactional background but am planning to switch to litigation after the clerkship with an eye toward corporate academia.

I prioritized geography when applying to clerkships and wasn’t too focused on feeder status. Now, I’m wondering if it makes sense to shoot for a clerkship with a feeder.

The issue is that, while I’ve got a number of strong faculty recommenders, I didn’t cultivate ties with the McConnells/Amars of the world, since I was more oriented toward corporate law in law school. So, while I’ve got respected profs to make calls, they won’t be the judge’s best friend.

Does it make sense for someone with business law (e.g., antitrust, arbitration, bankruptcy) interests to do another appellate clerkship? And if so, do I stand a chance with feeders? Thanks!

I don't imagine that a clerkship with a feeder ever really *hurts* anyone. That said, just to be clear, do you think you have a legitimate shot at SCOTUS, and want to aim for that? That's not at all me saying you don't have a shot (I don't really have the expertise/background to chance you, though you look competitive to me), just wanted to make sure what was implicit here was actually what you meant.

Because if you're really asking, does it make sense to aim for SCOTUS and do I stand a chance, that's one thing. But if you're asking "will a feeder clerkship on its own help with my long term goals," that's another.

If you're asking the latter, I think that for getting an academic job, getting a research agenda established and getting publications out in your field in good law reviews is a better use of your time than another appellate clerkship. However, it's possible that a feeder clerkship will give you more time/opportunity to do those things, so that's definitely something to consider, but I would view it primarily as a means to that end.

(I'm not even entirely sure that SCOTUS would make up for not getting publications out, but that's a much trickier question, and not one I can really weigh in on. My sense is just that there are lots and lots of law profs out there who didn't clerk on SCOTUS, and that advanced degrees are becoming more important for academia. But, you know, SCOTUS is SCOTUS, so.)

Finally, this may be me being obtuse, but I'm kind of confused by "switch to litigation with an eye to corporate academia." By "corporate" academia, do you mean litigation in which corporations get involved (which is kind of what you seem to imply with your definition of business law)? I just often see people use corporate as a synonym for transactional, so I wanted to make sure I understood how a switch to litigation would help you (not that it's exactly pertinent to the rest of your question).

[Anonymous User]

My end goal is to be a professor in one of the sub-fields I mentioned (e.g., antitrust, arbitration, bankruptcy). I’ve decided which I plan to focus on; I’m just being purposefully vague. In other words, I want to research and write about a “business law” subject that isn’t the bread and butter of SCOTUS (or the appellate courts in general, for that matter).

That said, as you noted, SCOTUS is SCOTUS. So, my questions are (i) whether I have a shot with SCOTUS given my profile (and if I should apply to feeders as an intermediate step); and (ii) if I do have a shot, whether I should take it, given that I don’t plan on writing about admin/con law, etc.

Returning to your corporate question, I realize I used that word to mean two different things; sorry! I was a transactional associate pre-clerkship and don’t want to be anymore, so I’m switching to litigation. I also want to eventually write about “corporate law” subjects but, in this context, I just mean business law (antitrust, arbitration, bankruptcy, etc.).

[Anonymous User]

My end goal is to be a professor in one of the sub-fields I mentioned (e.g., antitrust, arbitration, bankruptcy). I’ve decided which I plan to focus on; I’m just being purposefully vague. In other words, I want to research and write about a “business law” subject that isn’t the bread and butter of SCOTUS (or the appellate courts in general, for that matter).

That said, as you noted, SCOTUS is SCOTUS. So, my questions are (i) whether I have a shot with SCOTUS given my profile (and if I should apply to feeders as an intermediate step); and (ii) if I do have a shot, whether I should take it, given that I don’t plan on writing about admin/con law, etc.

Returning to your corporate question, I realize I used that word to mean two different things; sorry! I was a transactional associate pre-clerkship and don’t want to be anymore, so I’m switching to litigation. I also want to eventually write about “corporate law” subjects but, in this context, I just mean business law (antitrust, arbitration, bankruptcy, etc.).

I don't think another is worth it. You don't have a good shot at SCOTUS unless you get a feeder clerkship so if you are only doing this for SCOTUS, then I'd probably only apply to the top 5-6 feeder judges and just do one of those if you get lucky. There is no real reason to do two appellate clerkships and if you are really interested in corporate law I think it would make more sense to do Chancery as a second clerkship, which you would almost certainly get.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. I think that’s a fair plan. Applying to just the top few feeders to say that I tried will keep me from wondering “what if?” while also recognizing that a second (or third) clerkship isn’t especially useful for my goals.

[Anonymous User]

I agree that the second clerkship is really only important if you want a run at SCOTUS, which I think will be pretty difficult with your transcript and lack of recommenders with ties / access to the fedsoc network. (But if you think you'll regret not tossing in an application, there are worse ways to spend a year than clerking again). The pinned thread with the SCOTUS clerks has some really helpful (if somewhat dated) information if you end up going down this path.

If you really want to set yourself up for the academic job market, your time would probably be better spent either (1) putting in a year or two at a firm practicing your speciality (I've heard this is particularly helpful for bankruptcy/antitrust hiring) or (2) applying to one of the named fellowships (Bigelow/Climenko/etc.) to get more focused time to write, some teaching experience, and solid references when you go on the market.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. I think that’s a fair plan. Applying to just the top few feeders to say that I tried will keep me from wondering “what if?” while also recognizing that a second (or third) clerkship isn’t especially useful for my goals.

Honestly, I don’t see any point in applying to non-feeders because you have no shot at SCOTUS unless you do land a feeder. I only know a few people who snagged SCOTUS without clerking for a real feeder and they all were very connected. I’m talking like mom and dad can pick up the phone and call the justices type connected.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. I think that’s a fair plan. Applying to just the top few feeders to say that I tried will keep me from wondering “what if?” while also recognizing that a second (or third) clerkship isn’t especially useful for my goals.

Honestly, I don’t see any point in applying to non-feeders because you have no shot at SCOTUS unless you do land a feeder. I only know a few people who snagged SCOTUS without clerking for a real feeder and they all were very connected. I’m talking like mom and dad can pick up the phone and call the justices type connected.

Agreed. I’m saying I’ll only apply to the top few feeders to keep the SCOTUS dream alive, but otherwise just continue on with my academic pursuits.

[Anonymous User]

OP, do you know if your judge is willing to help you secure another clerkship?

[Anonymous User]

I dont think your resume screams feeder clerkship, candidly. It might happen. But a lot of them can get straight Hs (no Ps), and worse, many are booked years out. Many also screen on ideology and your middley mush won't appeal to them (sorry).

I think if you want to clerk for a feeder youll have to grind out apps and be ready to jump on any offers for fall 2025 and more likely, 2026. You could put your time in at XYZ litigation firm and try to work on an academic paper in the interim.

[Anonymous User]

In response to the first question, I haven’t broached the topic with my judge yet, but I imagine they’d be willing to go to bat, having done so for plenty of clerks in the past. I guess it’ll just come down to how I do this term!

As for the comment on my transcripts and noncommittal political stance, yeah, that’s fair. I’m decently conservative but never really played the fed soc game, since I’m not as fixated on the mission of originalism and all that as my con law-minded peers (again, having been more of a business-law guy all along). It’s kind of a bummer how polarized hiring has gotten at this level: Plenty of my profs clerked on SCOTUS decades ago without having to be card-carrying members of the Republican Party.

I feel plenty fortunate about the clerkship I already have, and the SCOTUS pipe dream would be a detour away from my field of interest in any case. Still, I think I’ll put together an app and see how it goes!

[Anonymous User]

In response to the first question, I haven’t broached the topic with my judge yet, but I imagine they’d be willing to go to bat, having done so for plenty of clerks in the past. I guess it’ll just come down to how I do this term!

As for the comment on my transcripts and noncommittal political stance, yeah, that’s fair. I’m decently conservative but never really played the fed soc game, since I’m not as fixated on the mission of originalism and all that as my con law-minded peers (again, having been more of a business-law guy all along). It’s kind of a bummer how polarized hiring has gotten at this level: Plenty of my profs clerked on SCOTUS decades ago without having to be card-carrying members of the Republican Party.

I feel plenty fortunate about the clerkship I already have, and the SCOTUS pipe dream would be a detour away from my field of interest in any case. Still, I think I’ll put together an app and see how it goes!

You have literally no shot if you don’t demonstrate a commitment to originalism. Most feeders will only hire people who share their judicial ideology. You kind of sound like a “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” type guy and that’s not even the kind of Republican current feeders want.

[Anonymous User]

In response to the first question, I haven’t broached the topic with my judge yet, but I imagine they’d be willing to go to bat, having done so for plenty of clerks in the past. I guess it’ll just come down to how I do this term!

As for the comment on my transcripts and noncommittal political stance, yeah, that’s fair. I’m decently conservative but never really played the fed soc game, since I’m not as fixated on the mission of originalism and all that as my con law-minded peers (again, having been more of a business-law guy all along). It’s kind of a bummer how polarized hiring has gotten at this level: Plenty of my profs clerked on SCOTUS decades ago without having to be card-carrying members of the Republican Party.

I feel plenty fortunate about the clerkship I already have, and the SCOTUS pipe dream would be a detour away from my field of interest in any case. Still, I think I’ll put together an app and see how it goes!

Blame Leah Litman for that

[Anonymous User]

In response to the first question, I haven’t broached the topic with my judge yet, but I imagine they’d be willing to go to bat, having done so for plenty of clerks in the past. I guess it’ll just come down to how I do this term!

As for the comment on my transcripts and noncommittal political stance, yeah, that’s fair. I’m decently conservative but never really played the fed soc game, since I’m not as fixated on the mission of originalism and all that as my con law-minded peers (again, having been more of a business-law guy all along). It’s kind of a bummer how polarized hiring has gotten at this level: Plenty of my profs clerked on SCOTUS decades ago without having to be card-carrying members of the Republican Party.

I feel plenty fortunate about the clerkship I already have, and the SCOTUS pipe dream would be a detour away from my field of interest in any case. Still, I think I’ll put together an app and see how it goes!

Blame Leah Litman for that

Who is that?

[Anonymous User]

In response to the first question, I haven’t broached the topic with my judge yet, but I imagine they’d be willing to go to bat, having done so for plenty of clerks in the past. I guess it’ll just come down to how I do this term!

As for the comment on my transcripts and noncommittal political stance, yeah, that’s fair. I’m decently conservative but never really played the fed soc game, since I’m not as fixated on the mission of originalism and all that as my con law-minded peers (again, having been more of a business-law guy all along). It’s kind of a bummer how polarized hiring has gotten at this level: Plenty of my profs clerked on SCOTUS decades ago without having to be card-carrying members of the Republican Party.

I feel plenty fortunate about the clerkship I already have, and the SCOTUS pipe dream would be a detour away from my field of interest in any case. Still, I think I’ll put together an app and see how it goes!

Blame Leah Litman for that

Would love to hear more about this theory. In the world where Litman never clerks for Kennedy, what happens exactly?

[Anonymous User]

In response to the first question, I haven’t broached the topic with my judge yet, but I imagine they’d be willing to go to bat, having done so for plenty of clerks in the past. I guess it’ll just come down to how I do this term!

As for the comment on my transcripts and noncommittal political stance, yeah, that’s fair. I’m decently conservative but never really played the fed soc game, since I’m not as fixated on the mission of originalism and all that as my con law-minded peers (again, having been more of a business-law guy all along). It’s kind of a bummer how polarized hiring has gotten at this level: Plenty of my profs clerked on SCOTUS decades ago without having to be card-carrying members of the Republican Party.

I feel plenty fortunate about the clerkship I already have, and the SCOTUS pipe dream would be a detour away from my field of interest in any case. Still, I think I’ll put together an app and see how it goes!

Blame Leah Litman for that

Would love to hear more about this theory. In the world where Litman never clerks for Kennedy, what happens exactly?

It was mostly sarcasm, but there are at least a few judges that have stopped hiring counterclerks or want much more solid conservatives due to being burned by liberal clerks. As examples, Scalia stopped hiring counterclerks, and Gorsuch had 1-2 classes with counterclerks and then stopped as well.

[Anonymous User]

In response to the first question, I haven’t broached the topic with my judge yet, but I imagine they’d be willing to go to bat, having done so for plenty of clerks in the past. I guess it’ll just come down to how I do this term!

As for the comment on my transcripts and noncommittal political stance, yeah, that’s fair. I’m decently conservative but never really played the fed soc game, since I’m not as fixated on the mission of originalism and all that as my con law-minded peers (again, having been more of a business-law guy all along). It’s kind of a bummer how polarized hiring has gotten at this level: Plenty of my profs clerked on SCOTUS decades ago without having to be card-carrying members of the Republican Party.

I feel plenty fortunate about the clerkship I already have, and the SCOTUS pipe dream would be a detour away from my field of interest in any case. Still, I think I’ll put together an app and see how it goes!

Blame Leah Litman for that

Would love to hear more about this theory. In the world where Litman never clerks for Kennedy, what happens exactly?

It was mostly sarcasm, but there are at least a few judges that have stopped hiring counterclerks or want much more solid conservatives due to being burned by liberal clerks. As examples, Scalia stopped hiring counterclerks, and Gorsuch had 1-2 classes with counterclerks and then stopped as well.

I don’t see any point in a SCOTUS justice hiring counterclerks. It’s not like the justice won’t be exposed to every conceivable viewpoint through their colleagues and their clerks anyway.

[Anonymous User]

In response to the first question, I haven’t broached the topic with my judge yet, but I imagine they’d be willing to go to bat, having done so for plenty of clerks in the past. I guess it’ll just come down to how I do this term!

As for the comment on my transcripts and noncommittal political stance, yeah, that’s fair. I’m decently conservative but never really played the fed soc game, since I’m not as fixated on the mission of originalism and all that as my con law-minded peers (again, having been more of a business-law guy all along). It’s kind of a bummer how polarized hiring has gotten at this level: Plenty of my profs clerked on SCOTUS decades ago without having to be card-carrying members of the Republican Party.

I feel plenty fortunate about the clerkship I already have, and the SCOTUS pipe dream would be a detour away from my field of interest in any case. Still, I think I’ll put together an app and see how it goes!

Blame Leah Litman for that

Would love to hear more about this theory. In the world where Litman never clerks for Kennedy, what happens exactly?

It was mostly sarcasm, but there are at least a few judges that have stopped hiring counterclerks or want much more solid conservatives due to being burned by liberal clerks. As examples, Scalia stopped hiring counterclerks, and Gorsuch had 1-2 classes with counterclerks and then stopped as well.

I don’t see any point in a SCOTUS justice hiring counterclerks. It’s not like the justice won’t be exposed to every conceivable viewpoint through their colleagues and their clerks anyway.

OP here. The problem I (admittedly self-interestedly) identified isn’t justices refusing to take counter-clerks, in the sense of a conservative declining to hire an avowed liberal. It’s liberals only hiring liberals and conservatives only hiring conservatives, thereby cutting out the middle.

Obviously, polarization goes both ways. But there’s a spectrum of conservative-to-moderate (and liberal-to-moderate) that, among the profession, probably outnumbers both poles but is ignored when you have to be either Josh Hawley or his polar opposite to have a decent shot at SCOTUS.

[Anonymous User]

In response to the first question, I haven’t broached the topic with my judge yet, but I imagine they’d be willing to go to bat, having done so for plenty of clerks in the past. I guess it’ll just come down to how I do this term!

As for the comment on my transcripts and noncommittal political stance, yeah, that’s fair. I’m decently conservative but never really played the fed soc game, since I’m not as fixated on the mission of originalism and all that as my con law-minded peers (again, having been more of a business-law guy all along). It’s kind of a bummer how polarized hiring has gotten at this level: Plenty of my profs clerked on SCOTUS decades ago without having to be card-carrying members of the Republican Party.

I feel plenty fortunate about the clerkship I already have, and the SCOTUS pipe dream would be a detour away from my field of interest in any case. Still, I think I’ll put together an app and see how it goes!

Blame Leah Litman for that

Would love to hear more about this theory. In the world where Litman never clerks for Kennedy, what happens exactly?

It was mostly sarcasm, but there are at least a few judges that have stopped hiring counterclerks or want much more solid conservatives due to being burned by liberal clerks. As examples, Scalia stopped hiring counterclerks, and Gorsuch had 1-2 classes with counterclerks and then stopped as well.

I don’t see any point in a SCOTUS justice hiring counterclerks. It’s not like the justice won’t be exposed to every conceivable viewpoint through their colleagues and their clerks anyway.

OP here. The problem I (admittedly self-interestedly) identified isn’t justices refusing to take counter-clerks, in the sense of a conservative declining to hire an avowed liberal. It’s liberals only hiring liberals and conservatives only hiring conservatives, thereby cutting out the middle.

Obviously, polarization goes both ways. But there’s a spectrum of conservative-to-moderate (and liberal-to-moderate) that, among the profession, probably outnumbers both poles but is ignored when you have to be either Josh Hawley or his polar opposite to have a decent shot at SCOTUS.

I don't think this is necessarily true. You just have the best chance of getting one of the conservative feeder judges if you're very, very conservative. But just looking through a list of the recent clerk hires and their judges, most of the justices still hire based off sterling credentials and recommendations rather than avowed commitment to any political ideology. I could be totally off base though!

[Anonymous User]

OP here. The problem I (admittedly self-interestedly) identified isn’t justices refusing to take counter-clerks, in the sense of a conservative declining to hire an avowed liberal. It’s liberals only hiring liberals and conservatives only hiring conservatives, thereby cutting out the middle.

Obviously, polarization goes both ways. But there’s a spectrum of conservative-to-moderate (and liberal-to-moderate) that, among the profession, probably outnumbers both poles but is ignored when you have to be either Josh Hawley or his polar opposite to have a decent shot at SCOTUS.

In defense of ideological screening:

Plenty of ideologically-febrile clerks still make it through today. Participation in fedsoc and other generic insignia of ideology doesn't actually say much. But it does indicate that 1) the person probably isn't a communist and 2) they have at least vague enough alignment to brand themselves.

There's not a reason to take a flyer on someone who can't clear these knee high bars.

There's certainly nothing wrong with caring more about antitrust than con law, or with not caring about anything that has the slightest political valence. But its perfectly reasonable for judges to prioritize those with interest in the debates they view as most intrinsic to our national life. That tends to mean con law.

You use the language of "polarization" as if its bad. But what I (a very right wing person) hear in the subtext is "I haven't thought much about, and don't care very much about, xyz issues, and if trusted with drafting an opinion on them, I am liable to thoughtlessly scew it up."

I'm not trying to shit on you. This is just data. You can defeat these presumptions. But they exist.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think this is necessarily true. You just have the best chance of getting one of the conservative feeder judges if you're very, very conservative. But just looking through a list of the recent clerk hires and their judges, most of the justices still hire based off sterling credentials and recommendations rather than avowed commitment to any political ideology. I could be totally off base though!

With the caveat that I don't have any personal experience with SCOTUS hiring, I think it's more "and" than "or" - they hire based off sterling credentials and recommendations *and* avowed commitment to a political ideology, because they can demand both. And by avowed commitment, I don't mean that has to be at all Josh Hawley levels of performative commitment. But it does make sense to me that, as the anon above me defending ideological screening said, at some level, the justices want to trust that their clerks have a baseline in place for drafting that justice's opinions, especially as the court itself becomes (or is at least perceived to be) more political and polarized.

(I think too, the thing about ideology as a term is that it often gets directed towards our political opponents - that is, many people are more likely to label someone they disagree with as ideological, whereas people they agree with aren't ideological, they're just making sense! If you substitute "jurisprudence" for "ideology" I think the discussion may read differently?)

As for cutting out that middle spectrum of people - sure, but I doubt the justices care. It sucks for what I'll call non-ideological (for lack of a better term) applicants mostly because generally, such students in any position to worry about who SCOTUS hires have been pretty successful their whole lives and see SCOTUS as this ultimate brass ring, the final marker of success that should be based on objective merit. And so it feels sort of unfair to have their shot at that brass ring diminished by ideological preferences.* But as the anon above suggested, part of "merit" for the justices is ability to advance a particular agenda/jurisprudence, and so it makes sense that someone with a demonstrated record of doing so has an edge over someone without.

(*I'm not criticizing anyone who feels this way; on its face that's perfectly fair. My personal take is that everyone is actually more ideological than they think they are, even if that ideology is "I don't care about politics," so there's some value to making ideology a more explicit part of the process, at the level of SCOTUS anyway. But of course I don't and never will have any possible influence on SCOTUS hiring processes either, so I just run my mouth on internet discussion boards.)