Supreme Court Clerk Hiring Watch: Happy New Hires
The latest SCOTUS clerk hires, a cornucopia of scholarship related to Supreme Court clerks and clerkships, and an ethics question from Reddit.
Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.
Today was the U.S. Supreme Court’s first opinion day of October Term 2025—i.e., the first day the justices took the bench to issue decisions. Or decision, as it turned out: Bowe v. United States, an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a highly technical habeas case. Contrary to the expectations of some observers, the Court did not release opinions in Louisiana v. Callais, an important election-law case that’s somewhat time-sensitive (because it could have implications for this year’s midterm elections), or Trump v. V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, aka the tariffs cases.
For any of you who were disappointed by the solitary opinion in Bowe—and in this morning’s SCOTUSblog live blog, there was definitely some disappointment—here’s a consolation prize: a new Supreme Court clerk hiring roundup. My last report was back in July, and I have almost ten new hires since then—enough of a critical mass to warrant a fresh roundup.
And I expect to publish another roundup in the next month or so. Why? First, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson interviewed and hired her clerks for October Term 2026 last month, and I expect to have all of their names soon. Second, Justice Sonia Sotomayor is interviewing potential OT 2026 clerks this month, so I’m guessing we’ll know their identities by the start of February.
Before providing you with the clerk names, I’d like to highlight some research and news that should be of interest to folks who follow SCOTUS clerk hiring:
If you share my fascination with Supreme Court clerk hiring, here’s a paper from last August about SCOTUS feeder judges that you will surely enjoy: “Beyond Merit: The Hidden Gatekeepers to Supreme Court Clerkships,” by Professors Tracey George, Mitu Gulati, and Albert Yoon. From the abstract: “Through an analysis spanning more than a century, we investigate the factors that contribute to a judge becoming a feeder. We question whether superior training is the primary driver of feeder status. Instead, we reveal how personal relationships, ideological compatibility, and the increasing market value of clerkships influence the decision-making of both justices and aspirants alike. By uncovering the nuanced trends and hidden networks at play, this study provides insights into the clerkship market as well as the federal courts themselves.” (Professors George, Gulati, and Yoon produce some of the best SCOTUS-related scholarship—e.g., their paper about Supreme Court litigators, which I discussed in Even Superstar Supreme Court Litigators Can’t Win Them All.)
You’ll also eat up this paper by Andy Smarick, “The Souterian and Rehnquistian Views of Legal Talent.” From the intro: “During congressional testimony in 1999, the late Justice David Souter explained that only those who graduated from one of the nation’s most elite law schools would be qualified for a precious Supreme Court clerkship. He considered it risky to hire from ‘outside the well-trodden paths.’ Earlier in the same hearing, he referred to Chief Justice Rehnquist’s well-known and different view: that the top performers at a wide array of law schools are ‘fungible.’ That is, the most elite schools might have more of the highest-ability students, but extraordinary talent can be found far and wide….. [This article] describe[s] the differences between the ‘Souterian’ and ‘Rehnquistian’ views of talent, show[s] how these differences manifest in a variety of important legal roles at the federal and state level, and describe[s] the influence of several notable factors, including geography, ideology, and ‘feeder judges.’” (Sarah Isgur and David French discussed Smarick’s paper on Advisory Opinions.)
Burford Capital helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a portfolio of over $7 billion and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost or risk or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at burfordcapital.com.
But wait, there’s more. Last September, Adam Feldman published two fascinating posts for Legalytics, his excellent Substack newsletter: The Ultimate Guide to Supreme Court Clerk Pipelines, which tracks data going back to 2005 concerning the law schools and feeder judges that produce SCOTUS clerks, and Clerks, Chambers, and Power: The Networks Behind the Court, which argues that “Supreme Court clerkships now function less as prizes than as pipelines, channeling talent through tight networks into powerful firms and institutions.”
Interesting clerkship-related discussions aren’t limited to academic scholarship. Over at Reddit, where I maintain a profile (u/davidbenjaminlat) and occasionally comment, someone posted an interesting thread about a month ago. The original post was deleted, but the gist of it was whether it’s consistent with a Supreme Court clerk’s duty of confidentiality to reveal that they worked on a particular opinion while at the Court (without disclosing anything substantive, such as how a draft opinion might have differed from the final, published opinion).
The issue applies to non-SCOTUS clerks as well, since they also have duties of confidentiality. Thoughts? Please opine in the comments and take my poll:
While doing the reporting for my deep dive into intensely accelerated Biglaw recruiting of law students (some firms are now interviewing first-semester 1Ls), clerkship hiring came up repeatedly as a subject for comparison. Some judges, predominantly liberal judges or Democratic appointees, adhere to the Law Clerk Hiring Plan—which provides some structure for the process, at least when it comes to the hiring of rising 3Ls. One critique of the Plan, however, was that its timetable was too rushed or compressed: applications could be submitted on the designated Monday in June at 12 p.m., judges could start contacting applicants that Tuesday at 12 p.m., and interviews could also begin on Tuesday—which led to a mad scramble.
But last month, a tweak was made to the Plan, as revealed on the website for OSCAR, the Online System for Clerkship Application and Review (emphases in original): “Judges will not accept formal or informal clerkship applications, or seek or accept formal or informal recommendations, before 12:00 pm EDT on Monday, June 8, 2026. Judges also will not directly or indirectly contact applicants, whether to schedule interviews or otherwise before 12:00 pm EDT on Tuesday, June 9, 2026. Judges will not conduct formal or informal interviews, or make formal or informal offers, before 12:00 pm EDT on Wednesday, June 10, 2026. (Note: As an experiment, a day has been added between the interview scheduling period and interview period.) A judge who makes a clerkship offer will keep it open for at least 24 hours, during which time the applicant will be free to interview with other judges.”
Giving applicants 24 hours in which to schedule clerkship interviews and prepare for them, instead of having the scheduling and conducting of interviews start simultaneously, strikes me as a positive change. As one judge who follows the Plan opined to me, “It’s not exactly a humane process, but it’s much less inhumane.”
Okay, that should suffice for color commentary. For paid subscribers to Original Jurisdiction, below please find actual clerk names, which won’t mean anything to most readers (aside from alumni of top law schools who are within five years or so of graduation, who might know some of these folks or be in the SCOTUS clerkship hunt themselves). Enjoy!
