SCOTUS clerk taking questions about federal clerkships Forum

[Anonymous User]

Do any of the liberal justices actively disfavor double appellate clerkships? Looking at their past hires, I don't think SS or EK do, but would KBJ?

[Anonymous User]

Obviously grades matter a great deal for securing a clerkship with any of the 9 SCOTUS justices. Equally obvious is that there are other factors that matter a lot in addition to grades -- ideology, connections, personality, professional goals, etc.

I'm curious, how would people rank the justices in terms of how grade-conscious they are/how much they insist on a platinum resume in every respect? And how would people characterize the "personalities" of the justices' respective clerk networks? Have people noticed that different justices tend to hire certain personality types, or that certain clerk families have a tendency to go into specific practice areas or geographies after the clerkship?

[Anonymous User]

Obviously grades matter a great deal for securing a clerkship with any of the 9 SCOTUS justices. Equally obvious is that there are other factors that matter a lot in addition to grades -- ideology, connections, personality, professional goals, etc.

I'm curious, how would people rank the justices in terms of how grade-conscious they are/how much they insist on a platinum resume in every respect? And how would people characterize the "personalities" of the justices' respective clerk networks? Have people noticed that different justices tend to hire certain personality types, or that certain clerk families have a tendency to go into specific practice areas or geographies after the clerkship?

Connections are the only thing that matters outside of being the Fay Diploma winner at Harvard. Their importance cannot be overstated. Without a personal advocate known to the Justice, you will not get a SCOTUS clerkship.

The only two Justices who are especially strict about grades and school pedigree are Roberts and Kagan. If you’re not at the very top of your class at one of the handful of schools they hire from, don't even bother.

[Anonymous User]

Obviously grades matter a great deal for securing a clerkship with any of the 9 SCOTUS justices. Equally obvious is that there are other factors that matter a lot in addition to grades -- ideology, connections, personality, professional goals, etc.

I'm curious, how would people rank the justices in terms of how grade-conscious they are/how much they insist on a platinum resume in every respect? And how would people characterize the "personalities" of the justices' respective clerk networks? Have people noticed that different justices tend to hire certain personality types, or that certain clerk families have a tendency to go into specific practice areas or geographies after the clerkship?

Connections are the only thing that matters outside of being the Fay Diploma winner at Harvard. Their importance cannot be overstated. Without a personal advocate known to the Justice, you will not get a SCOTUS clerkship.

The only two Justices who are especially strict about grades and school pedigree are Roberts and Kagan. If you’re not at the very top of your class at one of the handful of schools they hire from, don't even bother.

To elaborate on what this poster said a bit, the relevant connections can be personal between the clerk and the Justice, but also (and more often) are through the judge(s) the applicant has clerked for. The enduring ability of some judges to feed is explained in part by their ability to hire people with the right profile and in part by their own relationships with and advocacy to the justices. This is at least partly because many of the justices must rely heavily on a judge’s recommendation and likely have preferences with respect to whose they take the most seriously.

The previous poster is right that the two justices who appear to have the highest grade cutoffs and enforce them strictly are Kagan and Roberts (EK even more so than CJR, to my knowledge). I’m sure there are exceptions (and for CJR there appear to be more of them), but generally speaking they appear to only consider the top small handful of students at a small handful of schools.

By contrast, SAA/ACB/NMG/BMK/CT on the right and SMS/KBJ on the left appear to cast their nets a bit more widely (to varying degrees). Though it’s worth noting these conservatives all appear to hire almost exclusively at this point from Fed Soc. Not so many counter clerks as there previously were in that group.

For the retired justices, SGB appears to hire mostly from Harvard at this point (and maybe just from his RAs). And I have no insight into AMK’s hiring.

[Anonymous User]

Obviously grades matter a great deal for securing a clerkship with any of the 9 SCOTUS justices. Equally obvious is that there are other factors that matter a lot in addition to grades -- ideology, connections, personality, professional goals, etc.

I'm curious, how would people rank the justices in terms of how grade-conscious they are/how much they insist on a platinum resume in every respect? And how would people characterize the "personalities" of the justices' respective clerk networks? Have people noticed that different justices tend to hire certain personality types, or that certain clerk families have a tendency to go into specific practice areas or geographies after the clerkship?

Connections are the only thing that matters outside of being the Fay Diploma winner at Harvard. Their importance cannot be overstated. Without a personal advocate known to the Justice, you will not get a SCOTUS clerkship.

The only two Justices who are especially strict about grades and school pedigree are Roberts and Kagan. If you’re not at the very top of your class at one of the handful of schools they hire from, don't even bother.

To elaborate on what this poster said a bit, the relevant connections can be personal between the clerk and the Justice, but also (and more often) are through the judge(s) the applicant has clerked for. The enduring ability of some judges to feed is explained in part by their ability to hire people with the right profile and in part by their own relationships with and advocacy to the justices. This is at least partly because many of the justices must rely heavily on a judge’s recommendation and likely have preferences with respect to whose they take the most seriously.

The previous poster is right that the two justices who appear to have the highest grade cutoffs and enforce them strictly are Kagan and Roberts (EK even more so than CJR, to my knowledge). I’m sure there are exceptions (and for CJR there appear to be more of them), but generally speaking they appear to only consider the top small handful of students at a small handful of schools.

By contrast, SAA/ACB/NMG/BMK/CT on the right and SMS/KBJ on the left appear to cast their nets a bit more widely (to varying degrees). Though it’s worth noting these conservatives all appear to hire almost exclusively at this point from Fed Soc. Not so many counter clerks as there previously were in that group.

For the retired justices, SGB appears to hire mostly from Harvard at this point (and maybe just from his RAs). And I have no insight into AMK’s hiring.

Does anyone have a sense of the extent to which each of SAA/ACB/NMG/BK/CT/SS/KBJ are willing to "cast their nets a bit more widely"? In other words, to what extent the degree really does vary, and how grade standards cash out for each of the justices?

[Anonymous User]

Obviously grades matter a great deal for securing a clerkship with any of the 9 SCOTUS justices. Equally obvious is that there are other factors that matter a lot in addition to grades -- ideology, connections, personality, professional goals, etc.

I'm curious, how would people rank the justices in terms of how grade-conscious they are/how much they insist on a platinum resume in every respect? And how would people characterize the "personalities" of the justices' respective clerk networks? Have people noticed that different justices tend to hire certain personality types, or that certain clerk families have a tendency to go into specific practice areas or geographies after the clerkship?

Connections are the only thing that matters outside of being the Fay Diploma winner at Harvard. Their importance cannot be overstated. Without a personal advocate known to the Justice, you will not get a SCOTUS clerkship.

The only two Justices who are especially strict about grades and school pedigree are Roberts and Kagan. If you’re not at the very top of your class at one of the handful of schools they hire from, don't even bother.

To elaborate on what this poster said a bit, the relevant connections can be personal between the clerk and the Justice, but also (and more often) are through the judge(s) the applicant has clerked for. The enduring ability of some judges to feed is explained in part by their ability to hire people with the right profile and in part by their own relationships with and advocacy to the justices. This is at least partly because many of the justices must rely heavily on a judge’s recommendation and likely have preferences with respect to whose they take the most seriously.

The previous poster is right that the two justices who appear to have the highest grade cutoffs and enforce them strictly are Kagan and Roberts (EK even more so than CJR, to my knowledge). I’m sure there are exceptions (and for CJR there appear to be more of them), but generally speaking they appear to only consider the top small handful of students at a small handful of schools.

By contrast, SAA/ACB/NMG/BMK/CT on the right and SMS/KBJ on the left appear to cast their nets a bit more widely (to varying degrees). Though it’s worth noting these conservatives all appear to hire almost exclusively at this point from Fed Soc. Not so many counter clerks as there previously were in that group.

For the retired justices, SGB appears to hire mostly from Harvard at this point (and maybe just from his RAs). And I have no insight into AMK’s hiring.

Does anyone have a sense of the extent to which each of SAA/ACB/NMG/BK/CT/SS/KBJ are willing to "cast their nets a bit more widely"? In other words, to what extent the degree really does vary, and how grade standards cash out for each of the justices?

Don't overestimate the degree to which the conservative justices will compromise on grades. NMG, for example, sometimes hires literally the #1 person from Chicago, or Michigan, and so on. He has also hired at least one Fay Diploma winner from HLS before. Lots of High Honors grads from Chicago. Barrett, CT seem to hire High Honors Chicago grads--that sort of profile. Lots of schools like UVA as well, and CT is of course known for hiring from a broad range of schools (though those folks tend to have a lot of intellectual horsepower and were at the absolute top of their classes). Alito, I've seen some variation in grade standards. The occasional HLS cum laude graduate, or a cum laude grad with connections (e.g., Mike Lee's son)--that sort of deal. He hires from YLS a lot, though, so it's harder to tell where the clerks fell academically; same with BMK. These are all very rough approximations. High Honors at Chicago seems to be the ideal educational pedigree for some of the justices.

[h3laser]

Does anyone have an idea of how long it can take to hear back (if ever)? I applied not too long ago. Have two circuit clerkships (one with a feeder which I will be in next term and will reapply then if needed). Aiming for the conservatives (based on my resume) but applying across the board. Have people who clerked for some of them recommending me but don't really know what to expect or when to expect it.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have an idea of how long it can take to hear back (if ever)? I applied not too long ago. Have two circuit clerkships (one with a feeder which I will be in next term and will reapply then if needed). Aiming for the conservatives (based on my resume) but applying across the board. Have people who clerked for some of them recommending me but don't really know what to expect or when to expect it.

I only have limited information because I've only ever been interested in the liberal justices, but the short answer is that it varies widely based on the justice (and the timeline can even vary from year to year). I'd ask your recommenders (and post here, if you get an answer, so that other students can benefit in the future).

For other students:

Jackson: Applications were due in September. She gave out the writing test last month. She's extended interview invites (or at least some). So it seems like a few weeks in between these initial stages.

Sotomayor: No deadline like Jackson but my understanding is that applications should be in before November if you want to clerk for the following term. As I understand it, in more recent years, interview invites have happened in December, interviews in January, and selection shortly thereafter.

[Anonymous User]

Re: Law Review positions. Aside from EIC, is there a meaningful "boost" to being on any specific committee? Ex. Articles vs. Online Editing, Notes vs. Symposium, etc.? I sort of just joined a random non-Articles committee (no leadership position) but now I'm wondering if I should have put more thought into it beforehand and applied for Articles or something.

[Anonymous User]

Is it basically the case now that if you're interested in making a run at the Court, you need to clerk for two judges? Obviously probably at least one of those needs to be with a feeder (or at least someone who feeds semi-regularly), but if you secure a COA clerkship with a feeder judge will it really materially improve your odds if you also secure a District Court clerkship (whether with a feeder or not)? Is it mainly helpful if both judges and not just one are feeders? Are applications looked at unfavorably if they only have the one COA clerkship?

[Anonymous User]

Re: Law Review positions. Aside from EIC, is there a meaningful "boost" to being on any specific committee? Ex. Articles vs. Online Editing, Notes vs. Symposium, etc.? I sort of just joined a random non-Articles committee (no leadership position) but now I'm wondering if I should have put more thought into it beforehand and applied for Articles or something.

The general ranking is EIC > ME > Senior Articles > Articles. All judges will value EIC, most will value ME. But after that, depending on the judge, YMMV as law review standards have dropped.

[Anonymous User]

Re: Law Review positions. Aside from EIC, is there a meaningful "boost" to being on any specific committee? Ex. Articles vs. Online Editing, Notes vs. Symposium, etc.? I sort of just joined a random non-Articles committee (no leadership position) but now I'm wondering if I should have put more thought into it beforehand and applied for Articles or something.

The general ranking is EIC > ME > Senior Articles > Articles. All judges will value EIC, most will value ME. But after that, depending on the judge, YMMV as law review standards have dropped.

[Anonymous User]

Recent law school grad and I'm wondering if it'd be worthwhile applying for SCOTUS. T6, fringe magna/top 10%, COA clerkship (judge has sent clerks to SCOTUS but isn't a top feeder), not FedSoc or URM, strong but not nationally-renowned recs.

[Anonymous User]

Recent law school grad and I'm wondering if it'd be worthwhile applying for SCOTUS. T6, fringe magna/top 10%, COA clerkship (judge has sent clerks to SCOTUS but isn't a top feeder), not FedSoc or URM, strong but not nationally-renowned recs.

Pretty similar profile as you. Worth applying but not worth expecting, no?