Best conservative judges to clerk for? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Traditionally, double appellate has meant one D.C. Circuit judge and one regional circuit judge. The gold standard today is probably Thapar/Newsom/Pryor and Katsas/Rao/Walker. But it's become much more comment in recent years, especially on the conservative side, to clerk for judges on two regional circuits. Often, but not always, this will be one feeder the other either an up-and-comer or an older respected judge who isn't really a feeder. In recent years, respective examples of this have been Edith Jones/Larsen and Thapar/Carnes.

Generally, conservatives have done double appellate while liberals have done district-appellate. But the emergence of Friedrich et al. in recent years (plus some of the older guard like Leon) has made district-appellate-SCOTUS more common on the conservative side too.

Confused at Newsom over Sutton, and I wouldn’t include Walker, but yes

Newsom is better positioned to feed more than Sutton going forward. I personally would reject this entire concept of the DC clerkship now though. Katsas is obviously great but there are at least 7-8 conservative judges who would be objectively better for the majority of aspiring SCOTUS applicants than Rao or Walker.

Definitely. Sutton is still a great clerkship but has faded a bit from his feeding peak, and I would bet pretty strongly on the two new 11th Circuit feeders (Newsom and Grant) continuing to grow in prominence.

Walker isn't a big feeder, but the concept of a regional circuit-D.C. Circuit double has inherent appeal beyond simply SCOTUS feeding. In other words, there are real career benefits to a D.C. Circuit clerkship other than helping getting you placed at SCOTUS, and I think a young conservative is better positioned clerking for Walker (or Rao) than Henderson or one of the seniors. But yes, from a purely SCOTUS perspective, Katsas is the only D.C. Circuit judge who I'd take over the top 8-10 regional circuit feeders.

[Anonymous User]

Traditionally, double appellate has meant one D.C. Circuit judge and one regional circuit judge. The gold standard today is probably Thapar/Newsom/Pryor and Katsas/Rao/Walker. But it's become much more comment in recent years, especially on the conservative side, to clerk for judges on two regional circuits. Often, but not always, this will be one feeder the other either an up-and-comer or an older respected judge who isn't really a feeder. In recent years, respective examples of this have been Edith Jones/Larsen and Thapar/Carnes.

Generally, conservatives have done double appellate while liberals have done district-appellate. But the emergence of Friedrich et al. in recent years (plus some of the older guard like Leon) has made district-appellate-SCOTUS more common on the conservative side too.

Confused at Newsom over Sutton, and I wouldn’t include Walker, but yes

Newsom is better positioned to feed more than Sutton going forward. I personally would reject this entire concept of the DC clerkship now though. Katsas is obviously great but there are at least 7-8 conservative judges who would be objectively better for the majority of aspiring SCOTUS applicants than Rao or Walker.

Definitely. Sutton is still a great clerkship but has faded a bit from his feeding peak, and I would bet pretty strongly on the two new 11th Circuit feeders (Newsom and Grant) continuing to grow in prominence.

Walker isn't a big feeder, but the concept of a regional circuit-D.C. Circuit double has inherent appeal beyond simply SCOTUS feeding. In other words, there are real career benefits to a D.C. Circuit clerkship other than helping getting you placed at SCOTUS, and I think a young conservative is better positioned clerking for Walker (or Rao) than Henderson or one of the seniors. But yes, from a purely SCOTUS perspective, Katsas is the only D.C. Circuit judge who I'd take over the top 8-10 regional circuit feeders.

What are the benefits of the DC circuit? I’m clerking for a semi-feeder and I’m considering applying to another clerkship but I’m a deep long shot for SCOTUS and I don’t really see the point of doing double appellate. But I kind of want to just so I can put in a respectable application to SCOTUS.

[Anonymous User]

What are the benefits of the DC circuit? I’m clerking for a semi-feeder and I’m considering applying to another clerkship but I’m a deep long shot for SCOTUS and I don’t really see the point of doing double appellate. But I kind of want to just so I can put in a respectable application to SCOTUS.

DC is where most people interested in government and appellate work want to end up, and you can get a lot of face time with the justices clerking on the DC Circuit.

[Anonymous User]

Traditionally, double appellate has meant one D.C. Circuit judge and one regional circuit judge. The gold standard today is probably Thapar/Newsom/Pryor and Katsas/Rao/Walker. But it's become much more comment in recent years, especially on the conservative side, to clerk for judges on two regional circuits. Often, but not always, this will be one feeder the other either an up-and-comer or an older respected judge who isn't really a feeder. In recent years, respective examples of this have been Edith Jones/Larsen and Thapar/Carnes.

Generally, conservatives have done double appellate while liberals have done district-appellate. But the emergence of Friedrich et al. in recent years (plus some of the older guard like Leon) has made district-appellate-SCOTUS more common on the conservative side too.

Confused at Newsom over Sutton, and I wouldn’t include Walker, but yes

Newsom is better positioned to feed more than Sutton going forward. I personally would reject this entire concept of the DC clerkship now though. Katsas is obviously great but there are at least 7-8 conservative judges who would be objectively better for the majority of aspiring SCOTUS applicants than Rao or Walker.

Definitely. Sutton is still a great clerkship but has faded a bit from his feeding peak, and I would bet pretty strongly on the two new 11th Circuit feeders (Newsom and Grant) continuing to grow in prominence.

I have been wondering about this -- what does it mean for a feeder to fade? Does it mean that the justices stop heeding their opinions on clerks as much? Or that they don't spend as much time recruiting clerks and/or for whatever other reason are just not attracting the same level of applicants? Or alternatively, is it that other, younger feeders are crowding out their influence?

For example, if you took someone with the same exact credentials and had them clerk for Sutton today, would they have less of a chance at SCOTUS than they would if they had clerked for Sutton circa 2018? Or is it just that Sutton is less likely to land that applicant now than he was before?

[Anonymous User]

What are the benefits of the DC circuit? I’m clerking for a semi-feeder and I’m considering applying to another clerkship but I’m a deep long shot for SCOTUS and I don’t really see the point of doing double appellate. But I kind of want to just so I can put in a respectable application to SCOTUS.

DC is where most people interested in government and appellate work want to end up, and you can get a lot of face time with the justices clerking on the DC Circuit.

What if you have zero interest in living in DC long term?

[Anonymous User]

What are the benefits of the DC circuit? I’m clerking for a semi-feeder and I’m considering applying to another clerkship but I’m a deep long shot for SCOTUS and I don’t really see the point of doing double appellate. But I kind of want to just so I can put in a respectable application to SCOTUS.

DC is where most people interested in government and appellate work want to end up, and you can get a lot of face time with the justices clerking on the DC Circuit.

Why do Henderson and the seniors get so much shade? (See earlier post)

[Anonymous User]

What are the benefits of the DC circuit? I’m clerking for a semi-feeder and I’m considering applying to another clerkship but I’m a deep long shot for SCOTUS and I don’t really see the point of doing double appellate. But I kind of want to just so I can put in a respectable application to SCOTUS.

DC is where most people interested in government and appellate work want to end up, and you can get a lot of face time with the justices clerking on the DC Circuit.

Why do Henderson and the seniors get so much shade? (See earlier post)

Henderson is not a bad clerkship. She gets shade in comparison to the other conservatives because she doesn't really feed and is not plugged into the DC appellate legal world, in fact, she barely spends any time in DC. Randolph and Ginsburg stopped feeding a while ago too, which is just the natural progression of things as judges get older.

Walker shares similarities with Henderson, as he also has minimal presence in DC and lacks strong connections to the sitting justices. It is somewhat unclear why Rao was mentioned previously. As far as I know, her hiring process is highly competitive, and she clerked for Thomas.

[Anonymous User]

Traditionally, double appellate has meant one D.C. Circuit judge and one regional circuit judge. The gold standard today is probably Thapar/Newsom/Pryor and Katsas/Rao/Walker. But it's become much more comment in recent years, especially on the conservative side, to clerk for judges on two regional circuits. Often, but not always, this will be one feeder the other either an up-and-comer or an older respected judge who isn't really a feeder. In recent years, respective examples of this have been Edith Jones/Larsen and Thapar/Carnes.

Generally, conservatives have done double appellate while liberals have done district-appellate. But the emergence of Friedrich et al. in recent years (plus some of the older guard like Leon) has made district-appellate-SCOTUS more common on the conservative side too.

Confused at Newsom over Sutton, and I wouldn’t include Walker, but yes

Newsom is better positioned to feed more than Sutton going forward. I personally would reject this entire concept of the DC clerkship now though. Katsas is obviously great but there are at least 7-8 conservative judges who would be objectively better for the majority of aspiring SCOTUS applicants than Rao or Walker.

Definitely. Sutton is still a great clerkship but has faded a bit from his feeding peak, and I would bet pretty strongly on the two new 11th Circuit feeders (Newsom and Grant) continuing to grow in prominence.

I have been wondering about this -- what does it mean for a feeder to fade? Does it mean that the justices stop heeding their opinions on clerks as much? Or that they don't spend as much time recruiting clerks and/or for whatever other reason are just not attracting the same level of applicants? Or alternatively, is it that other, younger feeders are crowding out their influence?

For example, if you took someone with the same exact credentials and had them clerk for Sutton today, would they have less of a chance at SCOTUS than they would if they had clerked for Sutton circa 2018? Or is it just that Sutton is less likely to land that applicant now than he was before?

I don’t think it has anything to do with the applicants. Sutton can hire purely top 1-2% at HYSC if he wanted to do that, but he doesn’t. It’s more that there are just a lot of newly confirmed judges who are connected with the SCOTUS justices too. And those judges will crowd the field a bit more. Sutton probably hit his feeding peak before Trump when there were far fewer conservative judges and Scalia, who Sutton clerked for, was still on the bench. Some judges, like Thapar, are very obviously going out of their way to try to feed. Sutton doesn’t seem like he cares about doing that.

[Anonymous User]

Traditionally, double appellate has meant one D.C. Circuit judge and one regional circuit judge. The gold standard today is probably Thapar/Newsom/Pryor and Katsas/Rao/Walker. But it's become much more comment in recent years, especially on the conservative side, to clerk for judges on two regional circuits. Often, but not always, this will be one feeder the other either an up-and-comer or an older respected judge who isn't really a feeder. In recent years, respective examples of this have been Edith Jones/Larsen and Thapar/Carnes.

Generally, conservatives have done double appellate while liberals have done district-appellate. But the emergence of Friedrich et al. in recent years (plus some of the older guard like Leon) has made district-appellate-SCOTUS more common on the conservative side too.

Confused at Newsom over Sutton, and I wouldn’t include Walker, but yes

Newsom is better positioned to feed more than Sutton going forward. I personally would reject this entire concept of the DC clerkship now though. Katsas is obviously great but there are at least 7-8 conservative judges who would be objectively better for the majority of aspiring SCOTUS applicants than Rao or Walker.

Definitely. Sutton is still a great clerkship but has faded a bit from his feeding peak, and I would bet pretty strongly on the two new 11th Circuit feeders (Newsom and Grant) continuing to grow in prominence.

I have been wondering about this -- what does it mean for a feeder to fade? Does it mean that the justices stop heeding their opinions on clerks as much? Or that they don't spend as much time recruiting clerks and/or for whatever other reason are just not attracting the same level of applicants? Or alternatively, is it that other, younger feeders are crowding out their influence?

For example, if you took someone with the same exact credentials and had them clerk for Sutton today, would they have less of a chance at SCOTUS than they would if they had clerked for Sutton circa 2018? Or is it just that Sutton is less likely to land that applicant now than he was before?

The latter. Over time, newer, shinier judges take the bench, and once they begin to feed, applicants start to gravitate toward them, often because their connections are more current. Someone like Sutton still has broad and deep relationships across the conservative legal world, but today's 23-year-old who finished #1 after 1L might be pushed in the direction of 45-year-old Britt Grant, who seems likely to be highly influential on the circuit court for the next 20+ years if she isn't elevated herself.

To answer a later poster, this is the same reason the D.C. Circuit seniors (Ginsberg and Randolph) get "shade," to use their term. Both are wonderful judges who used to be significant feeders, but they hear a reduced caseload and hire fewer clerks now, which means they're not as relevant to top applicants as a Katsas or Rao.

Henderson is a special case as she was never interested in feeding, and hires almost exclusively men from preppy Republican backgrounds.

O'Scannlain and Wilkinson were two long-term exceptions to this rule as they kept feeding 30 years into their tenures, but both have faded in the past few years.

[Anonymous User]

I think it's a bit silly to call a judge who put three clerks into the OT 2022, and maybe the only judge who can potentially hit every justice, "past his prime," but Sutton has never hired like his sole goal in life is to feed. I get the sense that he often hires later, more grade-selectively, less ideologically, and more tie-sensitively than most of the Trump feeders.

More generally there's a divide in priorities among some conservative judges. Some take the attitude that "if I can get conservatives, that's great, but I'm not willing to give them shortcuts on the paper qualifications I want." And if you care a ton about grades, that probably means you're hiring later, which means you hire more non-ideologically, which all else being equal hurts your feeding. You might get clerks with better resumes than Pryor's or Thapar's, but they're less likely to get SCOTUS. Sutton is an example of this tendency to an extent.

[Anonymous User]

Traditionally, double appellate has meant one D.C. Circuit judge and one regional circuit judge. The gold standard today is probably Thapar/Newsom/Pryor and Katsas/Rao/Walker. But it's become much more comment in recent years, especially on the conservative side, to clerk for judges on two regional circuits. Often, but not always, this will be one feeder the other either an up-and-comer or an older respected judge who isn't really a feeder. In recent years, respective examples of this have been Edith Jones/Larsen and Thapar/Carnes.

Generally, conservatives have done double appellate while liberals have done district-appellate. But the emergence of Friedrich et al. in recent years (plus some of the older guard like Leon) has made district-appellate-SCOTUS more common on the conservative side too.

Confused at Newsom over Sutton, and I wouldn’t include Walker, but yes

Newsom is better positioned to feed more than Sutton going forward. I personally would reject this entire concept of the DC clerkship now though. Katsas is obviously great but there are at least 7-8 conservative judges who would be objectively better for the majority of aspiring SCOTUS applicants than Rao or Walker.

Definitely. Sutton is still a great clerkship but has faded a bit from his feeding peak, and I would bet pretty strongly on the two new 11th Circuit feeders (Newsom and Grant) continuing to grow in prominence.

I have been wondering about this -- what does it mean for a feeder to fade? Does it mean that the justices stop heeding their opinions on clerks as much? Or that they don't spend as much time recruiting clerks and/or for whatever other reason are just not attracting the same level of applicants? Or alternatively, is it that other, younger feeders are crowding out their influence?

For example, if you took someone with the same exact credentials and had them clerk for Sutton today, would they have less of a chance at SCOTUS than they would if they had clerked for Sutton circa 2018? Or is it just that Sutton is less likely to land that applicant now than he was before?

The latter. Over time, newer, shinier judges take the bench, and once they begin to feed, applicants start to gravitate toward them, often because their connections are more current. Someone like Sutton still has broad and deep relationships across the conservative legal world, but today's 23-year-old who finished #1 after 1L might be pushed in the direction of 45-year-old Britt Grant, who seems likely to be highly influential on the circuit court for the next 20+ years if she isn't elevated herself.

To answer a later poster, this is the same reason the D.C. Circuit seniors (Ginsberg and Randolph) get "shade," to use their term. Both are wonderful judges who used to be significant feeders, but they hear a reduced caseload and hire fewer clerks now, which means they're not as relevant to top applicants as a Katsas or Rao.

Henderson is a special case as she was never interested in feeding, and hires almost exclusively men from preppy Republican backgrounds.

O'Scannlain and Wilkinson were two long-term exceptions to this rule as they kept feeding 30 years into their tenures, but both have faded in the past few years.

Tbh I can't recall a single notable thing I've ever read by Grant. I'm sure she's great and all but I think it would be pretty nuts to take her over Sutton, who not only has a long history as a top feeder, but is widely regarded as one of the best federal judges.

I also question the premise that feeders necessarily fade; on the liberal side, Fletcher, Tatel, Garland, and Katzmann were the uberfeeders until very recently and none were spring chickens.

[Anonymous User]

Traditionally, double appellate has meant one D.C. Circuit judge and one regional circuit judge. The gold standard today is probably Thapar/Newsom/Pryor and Katsas/Rao/Walker. But it's become much more comment in recent years, especially on the conservative side, to clerk for judges on two regional circuits. Often, but not always, this will be one feeder the other either an up-and-comer or an older respected judge who isn't really a feeder. In recent years, respective examples of this have been Edith Jones/Larsen and Thapar/Carnes.

Generally, conservatives have done double appellate while liberals have done district-appellate. But the emergence of Friedrich et al. in recent years (plus some of the older guard like Leon) has made district-appellate-SCOTUS more common on the conservative side too.

Confused at Newsom over Sutton, and I wouldn’t include Walker, but yes

Newsom is better positioned to feed more than Sutton going forward. I personally would reject this entire concept of the DC clerkship now though. Katsas is obviously great but there are at least 7-8 conservative judges who would be objectively better for the majority of aspiring SCOTUS applicants than Rao or Walker.

Definitely. Sutton is still a great clerkship but has faded a bit from his feeding peak, and I would bet pretty strongly on the two new 11th Circuit feeders (Newsom and Grant) continuing to grow in prominence.

I have been wondering about this -- what does it mean for a feeder to fade? Does it mean that the justices stop heeding their opinions on clerks as much? Or that they don't spend as much time recruiting clerks and/or for whatever other reason are just not attracting the same level of applicants? Or alternatively, is it that other, younger feeders are crowding out their influence?

For example, if you took someone with the same exact credentials and had them clerk for Sutton today, would they have less of a chance at SCOTUS than they would if they had clerked for Sutton circa 2018? Or is it just that Sutton is less likely to land that applicant now than he was before?

The latter. Over time, newer, shinier judges take the bench, and once they begin to feed, applicants start to gravitate toward them, often because their connections are more current. Someone like Sutton still has broad and deep relationships across the conservative legal world, but today's 23-year-old who finished #1 after 1L might be pushed in the direction of 45-year-old Britt Grant, who seems likely to be highly influential on the circuit court for the next 20+ years if she isn't elevated herself.

To answer a later poster, this is the same reason the D.C. Circuit seniors (Ginsberg and Randolph) get "shade," to use their term. Both are wonderful judges who used to be significant feeders, but they hear a reduced caseload and hire fewer clerks now, which means they're not as relevant to top applicants as a Katsas or Rao.

Henderson is a special case as she was never interested in feeding, and hires almost exclusively men from preppy Republican backgrounds.

O'Scannlain and Wilkinson were two long-term exceptions to this rule as they kept feeding 30 years into their tenures, but both have faded in the past few years.

Tbh I can't recall a single notable thing I've ever read by Grant. I'm sure she's great and all but I think it would be pretty nuts to take her over Sutton, who not only has a long history as a top feeder, but is widely regarded as one of the best federal judges.

I also question the premise that feeders necessarily fade; on the liberal side, Fletcher, Tatel, Garland, and Katzmann were the uberfeeders until very recently and none were spring chickens.

Hot take, but if we're looking for 40-something circuit judges posed to be influential for decades, I'd probably take Oldham over Grant. Grant truly is great and I'm sure she is a fantastic boss, but Oldham has already written several significant opinions that have impacted the direction of the intellectual dialogue of the legal right, while Grant has not come close to that. And while Oldham's hardline conservatism might be a turnoff to some clerkship applicants, it will endear him to many others, including the justices. He also has kept pace feeding-wise with Grant. All in all, if I were a #1 student at 23 years old, that's probably the direction I'd go. But, to the earlier poster's point, it's still hard to imagine picking any of the younger judges over Sutton, just because of his track record and reputation, but that might just be a generational thing.

[Anonymous User]

Confused at Newsom over Sutton, and I wouldn’t include Walker, but yes

Newsom is better positioned to feed more than Sutton going forward. I personally would reject this entire concept of the DC clerkship now though. Katsas is obviously great but there are at least 7-8 conservative judges who would be objectively better for the majority of aspiring SCOTUS applicants than Rao or Walker.

Definitely. Sutton is still a great clerkship but has faded a bit from his feeding peak, and I would bet pretty strongly on the two new 11th Circuit feeders (Newsom and Grant) continuing to grow in prominence.

I have been wondering about this -- what does it mean for a feeder to fade? Does it mean that the justices stop heeding their opinions on clerks as much? Or that they don't spend as much time recruiting clerks and/or for whatever other reason are just not attracting the same level of applicants? Or alternatively, is it that other, younger feeders are crowding out their influence?

For example, if you took someone with the same exact credentials and had them clerk for Sutton today, would they have less of a chance at SCOTUS than they would if they had clerked for Sutton circa 2018? Or is it just that Sutton is less likely to land that applicant now than he was before?

The latter. Over time, newer, shinier judges take the bench, and once they begin to feed, applicants start to gravitate toward them, often because their connections are more current. Someone like Sutton still has broad and deep relationships across the conservative legal world, but today's 23-year-old who finished #1 after 1L might be pushed in the direction of 45-year-old Britt Grant, who seems likely to be highly influential on the circuit court for the next 20+ years if she isn't elevated herself.

To answer a later poster, this is the same reason the D.C. Circuit seniors (Ginsberg and Randolph) get "shade," to use their term. Both are wonderful judges who used to be significant feeders, but they hear a reduced caseload and hire fewer clerks now, which means they're not as relevant to top applicants as a Katsas or Rao.

Henderson is a special case as she was never interested in feeding, and hires almost exclusively men from preppy Republican backgrounds.

O'Scannlain and Wilkinson were two long-term exceptions to this rule as they kept feeding 30 years into their tenures, but both have faded in the past few years.

Tbh I can't recall a single notable thing I've ever read by Grant. I'm sure she's great and all but I think it would be pretty nuts to take her over Sutton, who not only has a long history as a top feeder, but is widely regarded as one of the best federal judges.

I also question the premise that feeders necessarily fade; on the liberal side, Fletcher, Tatel, Garland, and Katzmann were the uberfeeders until very recently and none were spring chickens.

Hot take, but if we're looking for 40-something circuit judges posed to be influential for decades, I'd probably take Oldham over Grant. Grant truly is great and I'm sure she is a fantastic boss, but Oldham has already written several significant opinions that have impacted the direction of the intellectual dialogue of the legal right, while Grant has not come close to that. And while Oldham's hardline conservatism might be a turnoff to some clerkship applicants, it will endear him to many others, including the justices. He also has kept pace feeding-wise with Grant. All in all, if I were a #1 student at 23 years old, that's probably the direction I'd go. But, to the earlier poster's point, it's still hard to imagine picking any of the younger judges over Sutton, just because of his track record and reputation, but that might just be a generational thing.

My hot take is that the most underrated judge in this category is Eric Murphy on the Sixth Circuit. He's not nearly as high profile as some of the others (I think largely because he focuses on his work much more than speaking and has a more understated style) but he's already one of the major thought leaders on the Sixth Circuit and--in time--might be one of the more influential circuit judges in the country.

From a feeding perspective, he hasn't fed yet, but it's probably only a matter of time. He has at least three clerks paired with Sutton, and others paired with judges like Grant and Walker and Ho and good district court judges.

[Anonymous User]

Why the focus on future output? From a selfish perspective, isn’t it better to work for a senior judge who has 30+ years of former clerks. Much better network

[Anonymous User]

Why the focus on future output? From a selfish perspective, isn’t it better to work for a senior judge who has 30+ years of former clerks. Much better network

As someone who clerked for a almost-senior appellate judge and a brand-new appellate judge, I'm not sure one is clearly better than the other. True, the more senior judge has a much more developed clerk network, and may have a more established reputation and more contacts. But a brand-new judge may be there for you for most or all of your legal career, which has its own set of benefits.

[Anonymous User]

Why the focus on future output? From a selfish perspective, isn’t it better to work for a senior judge who has 30+ years of former clerks. Much better network

As someone who clerked for a almost-senior appellate judge and a brand-new appellate judge, I'm not sure one is clearly better than the other. True, the more senior judge has a much more developed clerk network, and may have a more established reputation and more contacts. But a brand-new judge may be there for you for most or all of your legal career, which has its own set of benefits.

As someone who clerked for both a senior and a brand-new judge, this is correct. I am currently getting much more benefit from being connected with the senior's network of 80+ clerk alumni. But I am expecting the junior judge to be on the bench for the vast majority of my career, and I will always be that judge's first and most senior clerk in the network.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have a sense of what conservative judges' hiring timeline is like? For example, which judges are on plan? Which ones hire super early off plan? Which ones are off plan but wait a bit longer? Which are the wild cards?

[Anonymous User]

This is also second-hand but I've heard extremely negative things about Stras. One clerk was fired/quit recently and he's very tough. If you're competitive for Stras, then you're competitive for many other great judges. I'd pick one from the field over Stras if I could.

Colloton has a long-established reputation as a bad boss, so if the rumor mill on Stras is right, there isn't really an all-things-considered good clerkship for conservatives on the Eighth. The two who feed some are rough, the rest don't feed at all (except Gruender once in a blue moon).

It seems like this is right. The best circuits for conservatives wanting a good clerkship seem to be the Sixth (have heard good things about the experience with Sutton, Thapar, Kethledge, Murphy, Readler, Nalbandian, and Bush), the Fifth (ditto with Oldham, Jerry Smith, Ho, Willett, and Edith Jones (depending on who you ask)), and the Eleventh (Pryor, Newsom, Grant, Brasher). The conservative options on the DC and 9th Circuits also seem to be generally good (though I've heard some negative things about the experience with one or two of the Republican appointees on the 9th, but that was all hearsay for me).

Lol @ the insinuation that a clerkship with a non-feeder is not an "all-things-considered good clerkship for conservatives."

Keep it up, TLS!

[hutrivulto]

Former 11th COA clerk here.

Just to clarify: BL's clerks like her. BL is almost entirely remote though, so I would imagine that would impact your experience. If your sole concern was the quality of the clerkship, then I would highly recommend BL. (Branch just seems unpleasant when I interacted with her).

I was more referring to the quality of their work product. Both - for whatever reason - produce subpar work product: badly reasoned, confused, and just wrong. I had initially chalked it up to their lack of federal experience but Luck and Grant both were mainly state judges beforehand and they don't have the same problem. (As evidence, read Judge Lagoa's opinion in Pate - which was just heard en banc in June - or literally anything by Judge Branch). If your concern was "learning a lot about federal appellate litigation and/or legal reasoning," I would rank them low on the list.

And, if your concern is "clerk at SCOTUS" then obviously you need to target WHP, KCN, and BCG.

Finally, I agree with the proposition that there are the feeders (WHP/KCN/BCG) and the rest (ALB/RJL/BL/ELB) but I wanted to flesh out the proposition that not all conservative 11th Cir judges are created equal. I'd clerk for ALB over ELB 100 times out of 100.

Jeez, what is with the initials? SCOTUS is one thing but do you actually expect people to know the middle names of 11th circuit appellate judges.

But how else could OP try and signal their inside knowledge?!?!? /s

[Anonymous User]

has anyone heard anything about the experience with Nalbandian?

[Anonymous User]

has anyone heard anything about the experience with Nalbandian?

I interviewed for him, got the impression that he had a laid-back personality, more on the informal side of things. His former clerks seemed to love him. Cincinnati is a nice town as well. Based on the information I got, it would be a good clerkship experience.

[Anonymous User]

The DC circuit hears less cases and has fewer ideological fractures than some of the regionals. The conservatives there dont have the votes to make waves even if they were inclined to. That impacts litigants' forum-seeking behavior (no one fighting the administration will file in CADC if theyve got an alternative). All this makes it a sleepier place than you might imagine it to be.

[Anonymous User]

The DC circuit hears less cases and has fewer ideological fractures than some of the regionals. The conservatives there dont have the votes to make waves even if they were inclined to. That impacts litigants' forum-seeking behavior (no one fighting the administration will file in CADC if theyve got an alternative). All this makes it a sleepier place than you might imagine it to be.

This sounds like the ideological opposite of the 5th

[Anonymous User]

Who are the most conservative judges out there? How about among the feeders?

And, conversely, who are the most moderate/centrist of the "conservative"/FedSoc judges? and the feeders?

And who are the judges who are the most conservative/most centrist and who have the best reputations as a boss? Same question among the feeders?

[Anonymous User]

Former 11th COA clerk here.

Just to clarify: BL's clerks like her. BL is almost entirely remote though, so I would imagine that would impact your experience. If your sole concern was the quality of the clerkship, then I would highly recommend BL. (Branch just seems unpleasant when I interacted with her).

I was more referring to the quality of their work product. Both - for whatever reason - produce subpar work product: badly reasoned, confused, and just wrong. I had initially chalked it up to their lack of federal experience but Luck and Grant both were mainly state judges beforehand and they don't have the same problem. (As evidence, read Judge Lagoa's opinion in Pate - which was just heard en banc in June - or literally anything by Judge Branch). If your concern was "learning a lot about federal appellate litigation and/or legal reasoning," I would rank them low on the list.

And, if your concern is "clerk at SCOTUS" then obviously you need to target WHP, KCN, and BCG.

Finally, I agree with the proposition that there are the feeders (WHP/KCN/BCG) and the rest (ALB/RJL/BL/ELB) but I wanted to flesh out the proposition that not all conservative 11th Cir judges are created equal. I'd clerk for ALB over ELB 100 times out of 100.

Anyone reading this review should take it with a grain of salt: the author appears to have a personal grudge against ELB (tipped off by the author's failure to identify any of her supposedly "subpar" work product). ELB is one of the most dedicated mentors on the federal bench and is adored and beloved by her clerks. This past weekend, her clerks organized a five-year reunion event, which was attended by all but two of her current and former clerks. The dedication of those clerks to ELB should speak volumes about her personality and the experience of clerking for her. Further, unlike many other judges, ELB did not go remote during the pandemic and prioritizes spending time in-person with her clerks.

As to the quality of her work product--it speaks for itself. From her monumental opinions in Greater Birmingham Ministries, Winn-Dixie, and Black Votes Matter Fund; to her powerful dissents in Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, In re Wild, and Brown v. Azar, ELB has amassed a record of well-reasoned, clear-written, and substantively correct jurisprudence.