Sociologically speaking, why are some judges considered more prestigious than others in the same court? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Boiling the various vague claims here to specific, brass-tacks facts, I think most or all people will agree on all of these:

(1) The Ninth Circuit, especially in California, is highly attractive to clerks and has many highly selective judges.
(2) The few liberal feeders left at both the district and appellate levels are highly concentrated in the DC and Second Circuits, not the Ninth Circuit. The conservative feeders are scattered and most concentrated in the Sixth and DC Circuits, insofar as they are concentrated anywhere.
(3) The median Ninth Circuit judge is more selective than the median judge in most circuits, but less selective than the median judge in the Second Circuit and significantly less selective than the median judge in the DC Circuit.
(4) The median Ninth Circuit judge in a major coastal city is roughly as selective as the median Second Circuit judge.

Where that leaves the 2/9/DC debate, and whether to categorize 9 with 2 and DC or with the rest, is a matter of personal opinion.

Also, I don't think much of this discussion is really relevant to the original question, which was accurately answered almost immediately (feeding, writing, connections, pre-bench reputation).

Number 2 is factually wrong. 2nd and 9th are fairly comparable. In fact, per David Lat, 9th actually fed more than 2nd between 2017-2021. Number 2 also ignores the 75 year historic patterns, which you also will have to explain to me why that's going to break. I can see 2nd overtaking 9th slightly, but it's not going to be the massive margins you seem to be suggesting.

I actually agree with your 3rd point though. But that's only because there are so many 9th circuit judges that the median becomes skewed so it's the wrong metric to look at it. You gotta look at the top talent for each circuit. And when you do, it's effectively even.

Nathan and Lohier are major feeders going forward, insofar as major feeders exist. (Yes, Nathan didn't feed much on the district court, but she's now hiring jointly with Oetken a la Katzmann and that combo is probably second only to Srinivasan/Boasberg for liberals.) Calabresi also has fed quite a bit recently. The Ninth Circuit doesn't have one--everyone has talked about Friedland since she was appointed, but she's never really been a feeder for whatever reason, and Fletcher is no longer invested in feeding (though he does have a back catalogue that will keep getting hired for a bit). Both circuits also have some judges who might feed irregularly, like Berzon or Perez, but they're a wash.

I agree with your point/prediction about Nathan and Lohier. But again, your original 2nd point is just factually wrong, and now you're trying to project. Btw - I agree with all your 2nd circuit projections! But if you're going to project for the 2nd, you have to project for the 9th too given the historic cycles. Friedland, Koh, Chaabria, etc who knows. Someone will come along if you're following the cycle.

Your comment about Fletcher is also factually wrong. He just fed twice in the last cycle! (Edit: Just saw your edit about Fletcher, doesn't change my point).

I don't know what "projecting" means in this context, but your arguments based on the Ninth's former feeding power aren't relevant for its current state--as many on this thread have pointed out, Watford is gone and Fletcher is done or close to it. There just isn't room for 15 liberal feeders, or for new feeders to emerge, like there used to be.

[Anonymous User]

Boiling the various vague claims here to specific, brass-tacks facts, I think most or all people will agree on all of these:

(1) The Ninth Circuit, especially in California, is highly attractive to clerks and has many highly selective judges.
(2) The few liberal feeders left at both the district and appellate levels are highly concentrated in the DC and Second Circuits, not the Ninth Circuit. The conservative feeders are scattered and most concentrated in the Sixth and DC Circuits, insofar as they are concentrated anywhere.
(3) The median Ninth Circuit judge is more selective than the median judge in most circuits, but less selective than the median judge in the Second Circuit and significantly less selective than the median judge in the DC Circuit.
(4) The median Ninth Circuit judge in a major coastal city is roughly as selective as the median Second Circuit judge.

Where that leaves the 2/9/DC debate, and whether to categorize 9 with 2 and DC or with the rest, is a matter of personal opinion.

Also, I don't think much of this discussion is really relevant to the original question, which was accurately answered almost immediately (feeding, writing, connections, pre-bench reputation).

Number 2 is factually wrong. 2nd and 9th are fairly comparable. In fact, per David Lat, 9th actually fed more than 2nd between 2017-2021. Number 2 also ignores the 75 year historic patterns, which you also will have to explain to me why that's going to break. I can see 2nd overtaking 9th slightly, but it's not going to be the massive margins you seem to be suggesting.

I actually agree with your 3rd point though. But that's only because there are so many 9th circuit judges that the median becomes skewed so it's the wrong metric to look at it. You gotta look at the top talent for each circuit. And when you do, it's effectively even.

Nathan and Lohier are major feeders going forward, insofar as major feeders exist. (Yes, Nathan didn't feed much on the district court, but she's now hiring jointly with Oetken a la Katzmann and that combo is probably second only to Srinivasan/Boasberg for liberals.) Calabresi also has fed quite a bit recently. The Ninth Circuit doesn't have one--everyone has talked about Friedland since she was appointed, but she's never really been a feeder for whatever reason, and Fletcher is no longer invested in feeding (though he does have a back catalogue that will keep getting hired for a bit). Both circuits also have some judges who might feed irregularly, like Berzon or Perez, but they're a wash.

I agree with your point/prediction about Nathan and Lohier. But again, your original 2nd point is just factually wrong, and now you're trying to project. Btw - I agree with all your 2nd circuit projections! But if you're going to project for the 2nd, you have to project for the 9th too given the historic cycles. Friedland, Koh, Chaabria, etc who knows. Someone will come along if you're following the cycle.

Your comment about Fletcher is also factually wrong. He just fed twice in the last cycle! (Edit: Just saw your edit about Fletcher, doesn't change my point).

I don't know what "projecting" means in this context, but your arguments based on the Ninth's former feeding power aren't relevant for its current state--as many on this thread have pointed out, Watford is gone and Fletcher is done or close to it. There just isn't room for 15 liberal feeders, or for new feeders to emerge, like there used to be.

Feels like this assumption that there is more room for feeders on the CA9 is also ignoring that Garcia is very likely to start feeding on CADC.

[Anonymous User]

As an example of how Fed Soc has changed things geographically, i have friends with v high grades at a T6 going to the 8th 5th and 10th but libs are much more narrowly applying

My own experience was that liberal applicants sometimes viewed the red middle of the country with dismissiveness and contempt, and so barely even considered those circuits. Which is fine, they're entitled to their opinions and probably wouldn't get hired there anyway.

But is it really the FedSoc effect? Isn't it the extreme polarization of the left in law schools to the point where they cannot possibly imagine the horrors of clerking in Texas or Missouri or Kentucky?

Liberal applicants view it that way because there are no feeder or semi-feeder liberal judges in middle of the country. They are all in DC/2/9 with very few exceptions. Why is that the case? Goes back to the above discussion of where top liberal talent sets up chambers and attracts other top talent.

Right. Maybe we're talking past one another, but doesn't that help prove my point? There aren't liberal feeders in the Midwest or South. But if a highly ranked liberal at a T6 is so hateful of Ohio that they don't apply to Sutton (just as an example), is that best explained by FedSoc or by liberal applicants lacking desire to be anywhere other than major coastal metro areas? This is making the assumption—which I think is reasonable—that some very highly credentialized liberals could hired by non-liberal feeders outside 2/9.

The great irony is that there are some awesome cities in those areas that even elite coastal liberals would enjoy. Columbus Ohio is a perfect example.

[Anonymous User]

I think what's missing from this thread is the factor of ideology. DC/2/9 are more prestigious if you're targeting a liberal feeder judge. Can anyone name me an appellate liberal feeder judge that isn't on DC/2/9? If there are any, it's an outlier. Most law students are left-learning so it makes sense that DC/2/9 become more prestigious in folklore.

For conservatives, agree that the circuit hardly matters anymore.

If people are going to get into the weeds of circuit prestige, then whether the circuit has feeder judges has to be an important point. And that’s exactly why it’s hilarious to say the 9th is special. There is no conservative feeder and now that Watford is gone there is no liberal feeder. There are no true liberal feeders on any circuit besides DC. The 9th is not more prestigious than other circuits anymore, if it ever even was.

OP of the post you're responding to here.

I'm genuinely surprised by the lack of acknowledgment for the 9th circuit. First of all, I specifically segmented my answer by splitting for ideology. So a circuit doesn't need a conservative/liberal judge to be. prestigious. It just needs multiples of either.

Secondly, here are the current active liberal judges who have fed 2+ clerks on the 9th circuit (to the best of my knowledge, please correct if wrong): Fletcher, Friedland, Berzon, Watford. Yes I know 2 of them are older and 1 is retiring, but there's also a lot of promising feeder judges to take their place. KBJ just hired 3 clerks from the 9th circuit. You don't think there might be some promise there?

Furthermore, speaking of general California, NDCal which feeds into the 9th is also very good. Chhabria and a few others (to a lesser degree) are highly sought after district court judges with a track record of feeding.

Lastly, keep in mind the conservatives are dominating the courts and there are only 3 liberal justices. So obviously in sheer absolute numbers, there will be less feeder opportunities. But in relative numbers, given the above bench of proven and potential judges, I'm willing to bet 9th will continue to historically be as strong as before (if not stronger because of continued polarization).

Watford is officially gone. He was the only actual feeder. Sending 2 or 3 clerks to the Court over the course of your entire judgeship doesn’t make you a feeder. KBJ is the only hope but I highly doubt she consistently pulls from the 9th given her application process and background. The 9th is just objectively weak right now. If you make me rank circuits, it’s around middle of the road currently.

Interesting. Please educate us which circuits (besides DC and 2) will produce more SCOTUS LIBERAL clerks than 9 and why you think so. All the evidence I've seen indicates 9 will continue to have a strong role, but I'm open to new information. Again, this is for liberals.

You are missing the point. It’s not that other circuits will produce way more. It’s that there is little evidence that the 9th is still special and that it will produce much more than those other circuits. I did find the appeal to history and tradition interesting though.

[Anonymous User]

Someone come bump this post in 3-5 years. It will be interesting to see the results of what would have happened

[Anonymous User]

I'm suprised this hasn't come up yet, but the Ninth Circuit has over 50 active/senior judges. Surely we should be adjusting it to size for prestige. Someone earlier said 20% of the feeds are from the Ninth Circuit... well so are around 20% of the judges. Taking this into account the only circuits that notably overperform their size AND don't rely on only 1 or 2 judges in particular would be 2/DC.

[Anonymous User]

I'm suprised this hasn't come up yet, but the Ninth Circuit has over 50 active/senior judges. Surely we should be adjusting it to size for prestige. Someone earlier said 20% of the feeds are from the Ninth Circuit... well so are around 20% of the judges. Taking this into account the only circuits that notably overperform their size AND don't rely on only 1 or 2 judges in particular would be 2/DC.

Good point. But the last sentence is still only arguably true for liberals. The 6th and 11th each have three clear conservative feeders. I think DC is actually special because it is also pretty much the only circuit, at least since I’ve been looking at this stuff, that always has multiple liberal and conservative feeders at the same time.

[Anonymous User]

Sure but that’s not the only allure of DC. Any replacement DC Cir. clerkship is more highly regarded than a feeder clerkship (conditional on no SCOTUS). Outside the 6th and a few Uber conservative corners of the profession, Thapar without SCOTUS is just not a better credential than Henderson

[Anonymous User]

Sure but that’s not the only allure of DC. Any replacement DC Cir. clerkship is more highly regarded than a feeder clerkship (conditional on no SCOTUS). Outside the 6th and a few Uber conservative corners of the profession, Thapar without SCOTUS is just not a better credential than Henderson

I disagree. Thapar hires liberals and has fed to liberals too. It’s about as prestigious a clerkship as you can get right now. His typical clerk probably is very concerned about those conservative corners as well. Frankly, a non-feeder DC clerkship only looks better to people who aren’t involved in the more selective litigation arena. The people hiring for appellate positions, lit boutiques, and elite government gigs, all primarily take the specific judge into consideration. They don’t make distinctions based on circuits like this. But you can still make the argument that the DC clerkship is more portable for the more standard jobs.

[Anonymous User]

The Ninth Circuit has two liberal feeders (Fletcher and Friedland), one conservative feeder (Ikuta), a former conservative super-feeder (O'Scannlain), and a bunch of judges who send clerks to SCOTUS occasionally. It doesn't have any super-feeders on the level of the DC Circuit feeders or judges like Sutton, Pryor, etc., but neither does the Second Circuit now that Katzmann passed away. It's not the DC Circuit but the idea that it is a "middle of the pack" appellate court is nonsense.

[Anonymous User]

Sure but that’s not the only allure of DC. Any replacement DC Cir. clerkship is more highly regarded than a feeder clerkship (conditional on no SCOTUS). Outside the 6th and a few Uber conservative corners of the profession, Thapar without SCOTUS is just not a better credential than Henderson

I don't super agree with that - I think the feeder without SCOTUS still looks great and gives you a stellar alumni network. I guess DCC does too. But I think it is a wash. Would imagine that litigation hiring groups understand that clerking for Sutton is an impressive credential.

[Anonymous User]

Sure but that’s not the only allure of DC. Any replacement DC Cir. clerkship is more highly regarded than a feeder clerkship (conditional on no SCOTUS). Outside the 6th and a few Uber conservative corners of the profession, Thapar without SCOTUS is just not a better credential than Henderson

I think this is clearly wrong, feeders open significantly more doors than Henderson or Wilkins.

[Anonymous User]

The Ninth Circuit has two liberal feeders (Fletcher and Friedland), one conservative feeder (Ikuta), a former conservative super-feeder (O'Scannlain), and a bunch of judges who send clerks to SCOTUS occasionally. It doesn't have any super-feeders on the level of the DC Circuit feeders or judges like Sutton, Pryor, etc., but neither does the Second Circuit now that Katzmann passed away. It's not the DC Circuit but the idea that it is a "middle of the pack" appellate court is nonsense.

Ikuta and Friedland are both in the “occasional” bucket. Especially the former, who has fed like one in the past five years. O’Scannlain has stopped feeding and Fletcher is headed in that direction. And if you’re counting occasional feeding, nearly every Second Circuit judge besides the Biden appointees has fed at least a couple, which isn’t close to true on the Ninth. I think the only exceptions are Pooler, Wesley, and Nardini, and several of the seniors are former major feeders. Plus Lohier is now second only to Srinivasan for liberals, so that’s pretty like-for-like for Katzmann.

[Anonymous User]

The Ninth Circuit has two liberal feeders (Fletcher and Friedland), one conservative feeder (Ikuta), a former conservative super-feeder (O'Scannlain), and a bunch of judges who send clerks to SCOTUS occasionally. It doesn't have any super-feeders on the level of the DC Circuit feeders or judges like Sutton, Pryor, etc., but neither does the Second Circuit now that Katzmann passed away. It's not the DC Circuit but the idea that it is a "middle of the pack" appellate court is nonsense.

Ikuta and Friedland are both in the “occasional” bucket. Especially the former, who has fed like one in the past five years. O’Scannlain has stopped feeding and Fletcher is headed in that direction. And if you’re counting occasional feeding, nearly every Second Circuit judge besides the Biden appointees has fed at least a couple, which isn’t close to true on the Ninth. I think the only exceptions are Pooler, Wesley, and Nardini, and several of the seniors are former major feeders. Plus Lohier is now second only to Srinivasan for liberals, so that’s pretty like-for-like for Katzmann.

I agree that the Ninth has a lot of judges who have never fed and will likely never feed. I also agree that a lot of the judges on the Ninth are not all that competitive and that the DC Circuit and Second Circuit are, top-to-bottom, more competitive and full of judges who are much more likely to feed than the median Ninth Circuit judge. But that doesn't change the fact that the Ninth Circuit has a higher number of judges who at least occasionally feed than virtually every circuit other than the DC Circuit and maybe the Second. It's definitely closer to 2/DC than most of the other circuits, even if it doesn't have a cluster of major feeders in the same way that 6 and 11 do.

[Anonymous User]

Rather than focus on granular differences between CA2, CA9 and CADC, prospective SCOTUS clerks should focus on cultivating more important factors in their applications, such as whether their parents are law professors or circuit judges, whether they were admitted to an ivy undergrad as a teenager 6+ years ago, or whether they attend a top law school that, while lacking a rigorous grading system, can place you at a dinner table with a current Justice. Or, dare I say, developing a knack for wild Alaskan salmon fishing.

[Anonymous User]

Rather than focus on granular differences between CA2, CA9 and CADC, prospective SCOTUS clerks should focus on cultivating more important factors in their applications, such as whether their parents are law professors or circuit judges, whether they were admitted to an ivy undergrad as a teenager 6+ years ago, or whether they attend a top law school that, while lacking a rigorous grading system, can place you at a dinner table with a current Justice. Or, dare I say, developing a knack for wild Alaskan salmon fishing.

I've heard being the solicitor general's daughter is a decent resume line

[Anonymous User]

Garcia hired the person who graduated Summa from HLS this year. I imagine that bolsters the "he will feed" bit

[Anonymous User]

Garcia hired the person who graduated Summa from HLS this year. I imagine that bolsters the "he will feed" bit

Every single judge mentioned in this thread hires the EiC of law review, top 10% of HYS, or top 1-3 people in a T14 class. That's roughly 100~ outstanding candidate competing for a few select spots.

[Anonymous User]

Garcia hired the person who graduated Summa from HLS this year. I imagine that bolsters the "he will feed" bit

I'd have some questions about why they were not hired by Srinivasan.

[Anonymous User]

Garcia hired the person who graduated Summa from HLS this year. I imagine that bolsters the "he will feed" bit

Yeah I imagine Garcia/SDNY pairings will become common. Good contrast to the Srinivasan/Boasberg trend.

[Anonymous User]

Garcia hired the person who graduated Summa from HLS this year. I imagine that bolsters the "he will feed" bit

Every single judge mentioned in this thread hires the EiC of law review, top 10% of HYS, or top 1-3 people in a T14 class. That's roughly 100~ outstanding candidate competing for a few select spots.

Yeah no doubt that they all do, but feel like hiring HLS summa is more of a statement about someone's intended selectivity than being one of the many judges that pulls from people who graduated magna and were on secondary journal or something

[Anonymous User]

Garcia hired the person who graduated Summa from HLS this year. I imagine that bolsters the "he will feed" bit

Every single judge mentioned in this thread hires the EiC of law review, top 10% of HYS, or top 1-3 people in a T14 class. That's roughly 100~ outstanding candidate competing for a few select spots.

Yeah no doubt that they all do, but feel like hiring HLS summa is more of a statement about someone's intended selectivity than being one of the many judges that pulls from people who graduated magna and were on secondary journal or something

Yep, every HLS Summa from the past 15 years has clerked for SCOTUS with one exception.

[Anonymous User]

Garcia hired the person who graduated Summa from HLS this year. I imagine that bolsters the "he will feed" bit

Every single judge mentioned in this thread hires the EiC of law review, top 10% of HYS, or top 1-3 people in a T14 class. That's roughly 100~ outstanding candidate competing for a few select spots.

Yeah no doubt that they all do, but feel like hiring HLS summa is more of a statement about someone's intended selectivity than being one of the many judges that pulls from people who graduated magna and were on secondary journal or something

Yep, every HLS Summa from the past 15 years has clerked for SCOTUS with one exception.

Damn, really? What year was the one exception? What went wrong there? Not a big SCOTUS nerd but that's just statistically/sociologically interesting.

[Anonymous User]

Garcia hired the person who graduated Summa from HLS this year. I imagine that bolsters the "he will feed" bit

Every single judge mentioned in this thread hires the EiC of law review, top 10% of HYS, or top 1-3 people in a T14 class. That's roughly 100~ outstanding candidate competing for a few select spots.

Yeah no doubt that they all do, but feel like hiring HLS summa is more of a statement about someone's intended selectivity than being one of the many judges that pulls from people who graduated magna and were on secondary journal or something

Yep, every HLS Summa from the past 15 years has clerked for SCOTUS with one exception.

Damn, really? What year was the one exception? What went wrong there? Not a big SCOTUS nerd but that's just statistically/sociologically interesting.

Pure speculation, but I imagine they just weren't interested in it

[Anonymous User]

Garcia hired the person who graduated Summa from HLS this year. I imagine that bolsters the "he will feed" bit

Every single judge mentioned in this thread hires the EiC of law review, top 10% of HYS, or top 1-3 people in a T14 class. That's roughly 100~ outstanding candidate competing for a few select spots.

Yeah no doubt that they all do, but feel like hiring HLS summa is more of a statement about someone's intended selectivity than being one of the many judges that pulls from people who graduated magna and were on secondary journal or something

Yep, every HLS Summa from the past 15 years has clerked for SCOTUS with one exception.

Damn, really? What year was the one exception? What went wrong there? Not a big SCOTUS nerd but that's just statistically/sociologically interesting.

Pure speculation, but I imagine they just weren't interested in it

OP who made the claim. The exception is 2015, though there's also one recent summa who went straight into private equity instead of law -- perhaps the smartest one of all...