State of the Competitive Liberal COA Clerkship Market Forum

[Anonymous User]

SCOTUS feeder status gives a lot of information about who the most competitive conservative COA judges are, but the composition of the Court makes inferences about the competitiveness of liberal COA judge more difficult. It seems clear that Judge Srinivasan is at the "top" of the market, with Judges Pillard and Lohier a step below. But who else are professors sending top liberal candidates to?

[Anonymous User]

SCOTUS feeder status gives a lot of information about who the most competitive conservative COA judges are, but the composition of the Court makes inferences about the competitiveness of liberal COA judge more difficult. It seems clear that Judge Srinivasan is at the "top" of the market, with Judges Pillard and Lohier a step below. But who else are professors sending top liberal candidates to?

Just saw that no one had replied to this. It depends on what you mean by "competitive"—some judges might be highly selective but focus on things other than grades and traditional gold stars. And it might be harder to get an offer from a replacement-level COA judge in DC, NYC, or SF than an all-star in some other areas.

Thinking mostly of the grades/gunner types of competitiveness, I think it's roughly:
Srinivasan (DC), Pillard (DC), Garcia (DC), Barron (1st), Nathan (2d), Lohier (2d), Harris (4th), Heytens (4th), Higginson (5th), Koh (9th). Add Kruger (CA) for good measure. Calabresi (2d) and Fletcher (9th) are still around and historically highly competitive, but less so now.

That's organized by circuit rather than competitiveness. Other than Srinivasan, though, my view is that there isn't as much of a distinct top tier like there was with Garland, Tatel, and Katzmann a decade ago.

[Anonymous User]

SCOTUS feeder status gives a lot of information about who the most competitive conservative COA judges are, but the composition of the Court makes inferences about the competitiveness of liberal COA judge more difficult. It seems clear that Judge Srinivasan is at the "top" of the market, with Judges Pillard and Lohier a step below. But who else are professors sending top liberal candidates to?

Just saw that no one had replied to this. It depends on what you mean by "competitive"—some judges might be highly selective but focus on things other than grades and traditional gold stars. And it might be harder to get an offer from a replacement-level COA judge in DC, NYC, or SF than an all-star in some other areas.

Thinking mostly of the grades/gunner types of competitiveness, I think it's roughly:
Srinivasan (DC), Pillard (DC), Garcia (DC), Barron (1st), Nathan (2d), Lohier (2d), Harris (4th), Heytens (4th), Higginson (5th), Koh (9th). Add Kruger (CA) for good measure. Calabresi (2d) and Fletcher (9th) are still around and historically highly competitive, but less so now.

That's organized by circuit rather than competitiveness. Other than Srinivasan, though, my view is that there isn't as much of a distinct top tier like there was with Garland, Tatel, and Katzmann a decade ago.

Friedland (9th) should be on this list.

[Anonymous User]

Judges Ho and VanDyke top the list, of course.

[Anonymous User]

SCOTUS feeder status gives a lot of information about who the most competitive conservative COA judges are, but the composition of the Court makes inferences about the competitiveness of liberal COA judge more difficult. It seems clear that Judge Srinivasan is at the "top" of the market, with Judges Pillard and Lohier a step below. But who else are professors sending top liberal candidates to?

Just saw that no one had replied to this. It depends on what you mean by "competitive"—some judges might be highly selective but focus on things other than grades and traditional gold stars. And it might be harder to get an offer from a replacement-level COA judge in DC, NYC, or SF than an all-star in some other areas.

Thinking mostly of the grades/gunner types of competitiveness, I think it's roughly:
Srinivasan (DC), Pillard (DC), Garcia (DC), Barron (1st), Nathan (2d), Lohier (2d), Harris (4th), Heytens (4th), Higginson (5th), Koh (9th). Add Kruger (CA) for good measure. Calabresi (2d) and Fletcher (9th) are still around and historically highly competitive, but less so now.

That's organized by circuit rather than competitiveness. Other than Srinivasan, though, my view is that there isn't as much of a distinct top tier like there was with Garland, Tatel, and Katzmann a decade ago.

Yeah at my HYS I'd say these are the judges that non-FedSoc people seem to talk about as being the most desirable/competitive. I'd include Millett (DC), Livingston (2nd) (she's not exactly liberal but she definitely hires them), and Friedland (9th) (surprised you missed her). Koh (9th) has a pretty poor reputation at our school and probably doesn't get as many applicants as she could. If you're including her I'd say Owens (9th) is probably equally desired and looks for similar qualifications. Miller (9th) could probably also be included in this list and arguably is more grade sensitive than Koh/Owens (though only slightly so).

I think it's right that, aside from Srinivasan, there aren't any true feeder liberal judges anymore. The other DC Circuit judges are of course highly sought after and extremely grade sensitive, though it doesn't seem like you are more likely to secure a SCOTUS clerkship by clerking for one of them as opposed to most others on this list. I agree with OP's inclination that Pillard/Lohier seem to feed at least a little more frequently than the others as to justify put them in their own little group.

Looking at the incoming 2026 clerks (not all are known, though we know all of the liberal Justices' clerks), of the judges mentioned in this thread, people are coming from the following COA judges: Pillard (2), Lohier (2), Friedland (2), Heytens (2), Barron (1), Nathan (1), Srinivasan (1). Others not mentioned in this thread with 1 clerk going to SCOTUS include Calebresi (2nd), Sack (2nd), and Parker (2nd). (lots of 2nd Circuit representation this term!)

In short, I think it's quite clear that the only true liberal feeder is Srinivasan, and even then he "only" has 1 former clerk going to the Court this term. It seems now that stellar liberal applicants tend to be more spread out among the judges named in this thread, with Sotomayor and Jackson in particular generally hiring from a greater variety of COA judges.

[Anonymous User]

SCOTUS feeder status gives a lot of information about who the most competitive conservative COA judges are, but the composition of the Court makes inferences about the competitiveness of liberal COA judge more difficult. It seems clear that Judge Srinivasan is at the "top" of the market, with Judges Pillard and Lohier a step below. But who else are professors sending top liberal candidates to?

Just saw that no one had replied to this. It depends on what you mean by "competitive"—some judges might be highly selective but focus on things other than grades and traditional gold stars. And it might be harder to get an offer from a replacement-level COA judge in DC, NYC, or SF than an all-star in some other areas.

Thinking mostly of the grades/gunner types of competitiveness, I think it's roughly:
Srinivasan (DC), Pillard (DC), Garcia (DC), Barron (1st), Nathan (2d), Lohier (2d), Harris (4th), Heytens (4th), Higginson (5th), Koh (9th). Add Kruger (CA) for good measure. Calabresi (2d) and Fletcher (9th) are still around and historically highly competitive, but less so now.

That's organized by circuit rather than competitiveness. Other than Srinivasan, though, my view is that there isn't as much of a distinct top tier like there was with Garland, Tatel, and Katzmann a decade ago.

Yeah at my HYS I'd say these are the judges that non-FedSoc people seem to talk about as being the most desirable/competitive. I'd include Millett (DC), Livingston (2nd) (she's not exactly liberal but she definitely hires them), and Friedland (9th) (surprised you missed her). Koh (9th) has a pretty poor reputation at our school and probably doesn't get as many applicants as she could. If you're including her I'd say Owens (9th) is probably equally desired and looks for similar qualifications. Miller (9th) could probably also be included in this list and arguably is more grade sensitive than Koh/Owens (though only slightly so).

I think it's right that, aside from Srinivasan, there aren't any true feeder liberal judges anymore. The other DC Circuit judges are of course highly sought after and extremely grade sensitive, though it doesn't seem like you are more likely to secure a SCOTUS clerkship by clerking for one of them as opposed to most others on this list. I agree with OP's inclination that Pillard/Lohier seem to feed at least a little more frequently than the others as to justify put them in their own little group.

Looking at the incoming 2026 clerks (not all are known, though we know all of the liberal Justices' clerks), of the judges mentioned in this thread, people are coming from the following COA judges: Pillard (2), Lohier (2), Friedland (2), Heytens (2), Barron (1), Nathan (1), Srinivasan (1). Others not mentioned in this thread with 1 clerk going to SCOTUS include Calebresi (2nd), Sack (2nd), and Parker (2nd). (lots of 2nd Circuit representation this term!)

In short, I think it's quite clear that the only true liberal feeder is Srinivasan, and even then he "only" has 1 former clerk going to the Court this term. It seems now that stellar liberal applicants tend to be more spread out among the judges named in this thread, with Sotomayor and Jackson in particular generally hiring from a greater variety of COA judges.

Koh had some momentum after being elevated from ND Cal, but I think any recent CA9 clerk will give the advice that it’s a stressful clerkship and that there’s no redeeming qualities about the judge or the clerkship. Aside from location perhaps.

Friedland, Miller, Bress, Owens, and H. Thomas are probably the most desirable CA9 judges overall at this point.