Yet history is littered with presidential miscalculations. President Eisenhower famously called his appointment of Earl Warren to Chief Justice one of his \u201cbiggest mistakes<\/a>,\u201d as Warren became a liberal stalwart for over a decade. Justices Stevens and Souter, both nominated by Republican presidents, evolved into some of the Court\u2019s most liberal members. Had Republican presidents consistently installed reliably conservative justices since the mid-20th century, the Court would have been exponentially more conservative than it actually was.<\/p>\n But presidential legacy is only part of the story. The judges themselves have developed their own succession strategies. In recent years, a striking pattern has emerged: Supreme Court justices now appear ready to retire only with tacit\u2014or perhaps explicit\u2014assurances that they will be replaced by someone they helped shape, typically a former clerk. Since Justice Kennedy retired after the 2017 term, this has become the norm rather than the exception.<\/p>\n Kennedy\u2019s retirement exemplified this new dynamic. He secured not one but two former clerks in succession: Justice Gorsuch filled Justice Scalia\u2019s seat, which had remained vacant longer than any in Court history, and Kennedy\u2019s own seat went to Justice Kavanaugh. These consecutive Kennedy-clerk appointments represented a\u00a0carefully orchestrated transition<\/a>, a carrot from President Trump to convince Kennedy to step down with his legacy intact. For Trump, the bargain was equally advantageous: he could install more consistently conservative justices than Kennedy, who had occasionally sided with liberals on consequential civil liberties cases like the same-sex marriage decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.<\/p>\n The pattern continued with Justice Barrett, a Scalia clerk, replacing Justice Ginsburg after her death, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Breyer clerk, succeeding her former mentor. Based on this emerging template, I\u00a0previously wrote about<\/a>\u00a0how I anticipate that President Trump might appoint Judge Ho or Judge Rao\u2014both Thomas clerks\u2014to fill Justice Thomas\u2019s seat, and Judge Oldham, an Alito clerk, to succeed Justice Alito should either retire during Trump\u2019s tenure.<\/p>\n This pattern of legacy-based decisions augments the theory of strategic retirement, where federal judges retire under likeminded presidents to ensure the balance of each court does not shift in the opposing ideological direction.\u00a0I wrote about the possibility of this occurring<\/a>\u00a0and how the consequence of Justice Barrett potentially filling this seat prior to Justice Ginsburg\u2019s death. Many others also\u00a0contemporaneously<\/a>,\u00a0previously<\/a>, and\u00a0after me<\/a>\u00a0wrote about the potential and actual downstream effects of Justice Ginsburg\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n At the bottom of it all, this highlights the importance of federal judgeships, not only the president, but more importantly to future generations and to the embedding of particular values and preferences within the federal judiciary for decades to come.<\/p>\n The importance of federal judge replacements reaches beyond presidential legacy. This analysis examines which current and former federal judges have placed the most former clerks on the federal bench, using data from the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges maintained by the Federal Judicial Center.<\/p>\n Building on previous analysis of federal judges appointed from Reagan through the current Trump administration, this examination focuses specifically on judicial legacy through clerk placement. After correcting for inconsistencies in how the Biographical Directory formatted clerkship entries (First Liberty\u2019s Hiram Sasser noted in a comment some of the missing entries in a\u00a0previous post<\/a>\u00a0which I now corrected and\u00a0made freely accessible<\/strong>), the data reveals a clear hierarchy of influence across district, appeals, and Supreme Court levels.<\/p>\n If presidents\u2019 legacies are bound to their judicial appointments\u2014especially Supreme Court justices\u2014then the number of justices each president installs becomes a meaningful measure of lasting influence. While not every appointment produces the jurisprudence a president envisions, each represents an attempt to implant their vision of constitutional interpretation.<\/p>\n Among 20th and 21st-century presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt stands as the overwhelming leader, appointing nine Supreme Court justices during his unprecedented four terms. Taft follows with six appointments, while Eisenhower made five. More recent presidents show markedly fewer opportunities although Trump with three in his first term was a clear outlier.<\/p>\n These numbers reflect not just presidential priorities but the vagaries of timing\u2014how long justices serve, when they choose to retire, and the unpredictability of death. Roosevelt\u2019s nine appointments came during the constitutional crisis of the New Deal, while recent presidents have faced a Court where justices increasingly time their retirements strategically, often waiting for a president of their preferred ideology.<\/p>\n The downstream effects of Supreme Court clerkships can reshape American law across generations. Consider the lineage from Justice Robert Jackson to William Rehnquist, who clerked for Jackson, to John Roberts, who clerked for Rehnquist and now serves as Chief Justice. This chain of influence spans more than half a century, with each generation of jurists passing their interpretive methods to the next.<\/p>\n Supreme Court clerkships represent a relatively modern phenomenon, emerging primarily as the Court evolved through the 20th century. The number of clerks per justice has steadily increased, expanding the pool of potential judicial heirs. The data reveals which justices have been most successful at placing their clerks throughout the federal judiciary.<\/p>\n Justice Clarence Thomas leads by a substantial margin, with twelve former clerks now serving as federal judges\u2014a testament both to his long tenure and his deliberate cultivation of conservative judicial talent. Justice Anthony Kennedy follows with ten clerk-judges, including the two Supreme Court justices mentioned earlier. Justice Rehnquist placed eight former clerks, continuing his influence even after his 2005 death.<\/p>\n Justices O\u2019Connor and Ginsburg each count six former clerks in the federal judiciary, while Justice Stevens also placed six. Justice Alito has four clerk-judges, while Justices Breyer and Souter each have three. Perhaps most surprisingly, given his position as Chief Justice, John Roberts has not yet seen a former clerk become a federal judge according to Federal Judicial Center data.<\/p>\n The transmission of judicial philosophy from justice to clerk-turned-justice reveals itself most clearly in interpretive methodology. Justice Scalia\u2019s originalist approach in\u00a0McDonald v. City of Chicago<\/em>\u00a0exemplified his commitment to understanding constitutional provisions through their historical meaning. Writing about the Second Amendment\u2019s application to the states, Scalia emphasized the settled understanding that the Bill of Rights originally constrained only the federal government. His opinion methodically traced the historical record, citing Chief Justice Marshall\u2019s 1833 opinion in\u00a0Barron v. Baltimore<\/em>\u00a0and noting that the question was \u201cof great importance\u201d but \u201cnot of much difficulty.\u201d Scalia\u2019s analysis embodied his conviction that constitutional interpretation must begin with original public meaning, regardless of whether that meaning comports with modern sensibilities.<\/p>\n Justice Barrett, who clerked for Scalia, has inherited this originalist framework but applies it with a notably different rhetorical style and, at times, different conclusions. In\u00a0Haaland v. Brackeen<\/em>, her majority opinion defending the Indian Child Welfare Act demonstrated both continuity and evolution in originalist methodology. When petitioners challenged ICWA by arguing it was inconsistent with the Constitution\u2019s original meaning, Barrett\u2019s response revealed a more institutionally cautious approach than her mentor might have taken. She wrote that petitioners \u201coffer no account of how their argument fits within the landscape of our case law\u201d and noted they \u201cneither ask us to overrule the precedent they criticize nor try to reconcile their approach with it.\u201d<\/p>\n This represents a subtle but significant shift from Scalia\u2019s more aggressive originalism. Where Scalia often championed overturning precedents he viewed as wrongly decided, Barrett demanded that litigants reckon with existing doctrine and explain the broader implications of their originalist claims. Her question\u2014\u201dWould it undermine established cases and statutes? If so, which ones?\u201d\u2014reflects an originalism tempered by concerns about legal stability and institutional legitimacy. The clerk has inherited the mentor\u2019s interpretive framework but adapted it to a Court increasingly conscious of its public standing.<\/p>\n Circuit judges occupy a unique position in the federal judiciary. While they lack the Supreme Court\u2019s ultimate authority, they effectively have the final word in the vast majority of federal cases. Their opinions shape entire areas of law within their circuits, making them powerful vectors for transmitting judicial philosophy. The data on circuit judges with three or more former clerks now serving as federal judges reveals who has been most effective at extending their influence.<\/p>\n Judge David B. Sentelle of the D.C. Circuit leads all circuit judges with seven former clerks in the federal judiciary\u2014an extraordinary record that reflects both his long service and his role in shaping conservative legal thought. Judge Henry J. Friendly of the Second Circuit and Judge William H. Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit follow with six clerk-judges each. Several other prominent circuit judges, including J. Harvie Wilkinson III, J. Clifford Wallace, and Brett Kavanaugh (before his Supreme Court appointment), have placed five former clerks.<\/p>\n The concentration at the top of this list is striking. While thirty-five circuit judges have placed at least three former clerks, the gap between Sentelle\u2019s seven and the next tier reflects his particular success at cultivating judicial talent. Many of these judges served or continue to serve on influential circuits\u2014the D.C., Fourth, and Ninth Circuits appear frequently\u2014where high-profile cases and proximity to political power create natural pipelines to future judicial appointments.<\/p>\n The connection between Judge Sentelle and Justice Gorsuch illuminates how circuit court judges transmit interpretive approaches that later appear in Supreme Court jurisprudence. In\u00a0NLRB v. Canning<\/em>, Judge Sentelle\u2019s opinion for the D.C. Circuit panel exemplified his textualist methodology. Interpreting the Recess Appointments Clause, Sentelle focused on the plain meaning of \u201chappen,\u201d construing it to mean \u201carise\u201d and emphasizing textual consistency across constitutional provisions. He wrote that \u201cinconsistency [within the Constitution] is to be implied only where the context clearly requires it,\u201d citing a 1949 precedent. For Sentelle, the clause\u2019s text demanded that a qualifying vacancy must have \u201ccome to pass or arisen \u2018during the Recess\u2019\u201d\u2014a reading he found consistent with the Senate Vacancies Clause while the Board\u2019s interpretation was not.<\/p>\n Justice Gorsuch\u2019s approach in\u00a0Bostock v. Clayton County<\/em>\u00a0echoes his former mentor\u2019s commitment to text over expected applications. Writing for the Court in the landmark Title VII case, Gorsuch rejected the employers\u2019 argument that Congress could not have intended the statute to cover sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. He acknowledged the employers \u201ctake pains to couch their argument in terms of seeking to honor the statute\u2019s \u2018expected applications\u2019 rather than vindicate its \u2018legislative intent,\u2019\u201d but insisted \u201cthe concepts are closely related.\u201d Gorsuch\u2019s retort\u2014\u201dHowever framed, the employer\u2019s logic impermissibly seeks to displace the plain meaning of the law in favor of something lying beyond it\u201d\u2014could have been written by Sentelle himself.<\/p>\n Yet Gorsuch\u2019s opinion in\u00a0Bostock<\/em>\u00a0also reveals how judicial philosophy evolves across generations. While Sentelle\u2019s textualism in\u00a0Canning<\/em>\u00a0served conservative ends (limiting executive power under a Democratic president), Gorsuch\u2019s textualism in\u00a0Bostock<\/em>\u00a0produced a liberal outcome that many conservatives opposed. Both judges prioritized text over expected applications, but Gorsuch demonstrated a willingness to follow the text even when it led somewhere his mentor\u2019s ideological allies found uncomfortable. The methodology remains consistent; the outcomes can surprise.<\/p>\n District court judges handle the vast bulk of federal litigation, conducting trials, managing discovery, and making the factual findings that appellate courts later review. While individual district judges may lack the precedential authority of their appellate colleagues, collectively they shape how federal law operates on the ground. The judges who have placed multiple former clerks on the federal bench represent an often-overlooked tier of judicial influence.<\/p>\n The data reveals a more dispersed pattern than at the circuit or Supreme Court levels. Judge Michael B. Mukasey of the Southern District of New York leads with four former clerks in the federal judiciary\u2014an impressive figure given that district judges typically have fewer clerks and less name recognition than their appellate counterparts. Judge James C. Cacheris of the Eastern District of Virginia follows with three clerk-judges, while numerous other district judges have placed two former clerks.<\/p>\n The geographic concentration is notable. Many judges on this list served in high-profile districts\u2014the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of Virginia, and the District of Columbia\u2014where challenging cases and visibility create opportunities for clerks to distinguish themselves. Judges in these districts often handle national security cases, complex white-collar prosecutions, and politically sensitive litigation, providing clerks with experience that later recommends them for judicial appointments.<\/p>\n The judicial lineage from Judge Mukasey to Judge Patricia Millett Pan of the D.C. Circuit demonstrates how district court approaches to constitutional doctrine can influence appellate jurisprudence. In\u00a0Nonnenmann v. City of New York<\/em>, Judge Mukasey granted summary judgment on First Amendment claims with a terse analysis that exemplified his pragmatic approach. He concluded that the plaintiff\u2019s speech \u201cdid not address a constitutionally protected issue of public concern,\u201d disposing of the claim in a single sentence within a broader opinion rejecting multiple theories of liability. Mukasey\u2019s treatment reflected the district court\u2019s role: apply established doctrine efficiently, manage complex dockets, and move cases toward resolution.<\/p>\n Judge Pan\u2019s opinion in\u00a0Ateba v. Leavitt<\/em>\u00a0reveals a more elaborate First Amendment framework, though one that reaches a similarly government-friendly conclusion. The case involved a journalist\u2019s challenge to the White House hard pass policy. Pan acknowledged the First Amendment concerns but applied the established reasonableness standard, concluding that conditioning fuller access on Senate Daily Press Gallery accreditation was \u201cboth reasonable and viewpoint neutral.\u201d Her analysis engaged more deeply with the constitutional doctrine, addressing arguments about unbridled discretion and procedural protections while ultimately deferring to the government\u2019s access policy. Much of the difference in depth of analysis may relate to the objectives and extent of constitutional interpretation of district court versus appeals court judge.<\/p>\n The comparison reveals both continuity and evolution. Both judges applied First Amendment doctrine to uphold government restrictions, and both wrote with relative brevity. Yet Pan\u2019s opinion shows the more elaborate reasoning expected at the appellate level, engaging with constitutional standards and potential objections while Mukasey\u2019s district court opinion moved quickly to disposition. The student has learned to elaborate on the framework while reaching conclusions that likely would satisfy her mentor.<\/p>\n These patterns of clerk succession point toward a fundamental transformation in how the federal judiciary perpetuates itself. What began as an informal preference for continuity has evolved into something approaching a self-replicating system, where judicial philosophies pass from one generation to the next through carefully cultivated mentor-clerk relationships. The implications extend far beyond individual careers or even the ideological balance of particular courts.<\/p>\n First, the clerk pipeline is creating unprecedented ideological coherence within judicial camps. When Justice Scalia\u2019s originalism passes to Justice Barrett, or Judge Sentelle\u2019s textualism appears in Justice Gorsuch\u2019s opinions, or Judge Mukasey\u2019s First Amendment skepticism echoes in Judge Pan\u2019s rulings, we see not just individual judges but schools of thought reproducing themselves across levels of the federal judiciary. This coherence increases predictability\u2014probably a good thing for the rule of law\u2014but also reduces the kind of creative tension that historically produced judicial evolution.<\/p>\n Second, the emphasis on clerk credentials may be narrowing the diversity of judicial backgrounds and experiences. When Supreme Court seats increasingly go to former clerks of previous justices, and circuit judgeships follow similar patterns, the federal judiciary risks becoming a closed system that prizes insider credentials over other forms of distinction. A lawyer who built a successful trial practice, or led a civil rights organization, or served as a state judge may find themselves disadvantaged compared to someone who clerked for the right justice at the right time.<\/p>\n Third, strategic retirement is likely to become even more entrenched as justices and judges see their former clerks successfully ascend to higher courts. Why risk having your seat filled by someone who will dismantle your life\u2019s work when you can time your retirement to ensure a former clerk succeeds you? This calculus transforms judicial service from a commitment to decide cases until incapacity into a more strategic career management decision. The Court becomes less independent of politics, not more, as retirements increasingly align with electoral cycles.<\/p>\n Fourth, the concentration visible in these numbers\u2014particularly Justice Thomas\u2019s twelve clerk-judges and Judge Sentelle\u2019s seven\u2014suggests that a relatively small number of judges are having outsized influence on the composition of the federal bench. This has the effect of concentrating enormous power in the hands of a few individuals to shape the judiciary\u2019s future direction, particularly when combined with ideologically motivated appointment processes.<\/p>\n Looking forward, several questions demand attention. Will this trend continue to accelerate? Will judges who lack Supreme Court or prominent circuit clerkships find their paths to the bench increasingly blocked? Will the public\u2019s perception of judicial independence suffer?<\/p>\n Perhaps most intriguingly, will the next generation of judges\u2014those who clerked for justices who themselves were clerks\u2014develop distinctive approaches that break from their mentors\u2019 methods? Justice Gorsuch\u2019s surprising Bostock opinion suggests that judicial philosophy, even when transmitted through close mentorship, remains more dynamic and unpredictable than a simple model of replication would suggest. The clerks may learn their mentors\u2019 methods, but they apply those methods in new contexts, facing new questions, and sometimes reach conclusions that would have shocked their teachers.<\/p>\n The data presented here captures a moment in the evolution of the federal judiciary\u2014a moment when the clerk pipeline has become visible enough to analyze but perhaps not yet so entrenched that it cannot be questioned or redirected. As President Trump\u2019s second administration considers judicial appointments, and as sitting justices contemplate their retirement timing, these patterns of succession will likely intensify. Whether that produces a judiciary that is more coherent and predictable, or one that is closed and self-referential, remains to be seen.<\/p>\n What seems certain is that the era of unpredictable judicial appointments\u2014when Republican presidents might appoint liberal justices or when judges might dramatically evolve on the bench\u2014is largely over. The clerk pipeline, combined with more sophisticated vetting processes and strategic retirement decisions, has made judicial appointments far more predictable. We know not just what ideology a nominee holds, but where they learned it, from whom, and how they are likely to apply it. The federal judiciary is becoming, for better or worse, a self-perpetuating institution where each generation of judges carefully selects and trains the next.<\/p>\n Click here to read more from Legalytics\u2026<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n Adam Feldman runs the litigation consulting company Optimized Legal Solutions LLC. Check out more of his writing at\u00a0Legalytics<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Empirical SCOTUS<\/a>. For more information, write Adam at\u00a0adam@feldmannet.com<\/a>.\u00a0Find him on Twitter:\u00a0@AdamSFeldman.<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The post Former Judicial Clerks: Creating Legacies For Generations<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n Among a president\u2019s most\u00a0enduring legacies<\/a>\u00a0are the federal judges they appoint\u2014particularly Supreme Court justices. This permanence stems from life tenure, a constitutional provision that ensures judicial independence but also transforms each appointment into a generational bet on the nation\u2019s legal future.<\/p>\n Yet history is littered with presidential miscalculations. President Eisenhower famously called his appointment of Earl Warren to Chief Justice one of his \u201cbiggest mistakes<\/a>,\u201d as Warren became a liberal stalwart for over a decade. Justices Stevens and Souter, both nominated by Republican presidents, evolved into some of the Court\u2019s most liberal members. Had Republican presidents consistently installed reliably conservative justices since the mid-20th century, the Court would have been exponentially more conservative than it actually was.<\/p>\n But presidential legacy is only part of the story. The judges themselves have developed their own succession strategies. In recent years, a striking pattern has emerged: Supreme Court justices now appear ready to retire only with tacit\u2014or perhaps explicit\u2014assurances that they will be replaced by someone they helped shape, typically a former clerk. Since Justice Kennedy retired after the 2017 term, this has become the norm rather than the exception.<\/p>\n Kennedy\u2019s retirement exemplified this new dynamic. He secured not one but two former clerks in succession: Justice Gorsuch filled Justice Scalia\u2019s seat, which had remained vacant longer than any in Court history, and Kennedy\u2019s own seat went to Justice Kavanaugh. These consecutive Kennedy-clerk appointments represented a\u00a0carefully orchestrated transition<\/a>, a carrot from President Trump to convince Kennedy to step down with his legacy intact. For Trump, the bargain was equally advantageous: he could install more consistently conservative justices than Kennedy, who had occasionally sided with liberals on consequential civil liberties cases like the same-sex marriage decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.<\/p>\n The pattern continued with Justice Barrett, a Scalia clerk, replacing Justice Ginsburg after her death, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Breyer clerk, succeeding her former mentor. Based on this emerging template, I\u00a0previously wrote about<\/a>\u00a0how I anticipate that President Trump might appoint Judge Ho or Judge Rao\u2014both Thomas clerks\u2014to fill Justice Thomas\u2019s seat, and Judge Oldham, an Alito clerk, to succeed Justice Alito should either retire during Trump\u2019s tenure.<\/p>\n This pattern of legacy-based decisions augments the theory of strategic retirement, where federal judges retire under likeminded presidents to ensure the balance of each court does not shift in the opposing ideological direction.\u00a0I wrote about the possibility of this occurring<\/a>\u00a0and how the consequence of Justice Barrett potentially filling this seat prior to Justice Ginsburg\u2019s death. Many others also\u00a0contemporaneously<\/a>,\u00a0previously<\/a>, and\u00a0after me<\/a>\u00a0wrote about the potential and actual downstream effects of Justice Ginsburg\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n At the bottom of it all, this highlights the importance of federal judgeships, not only the president, but more importantly to future generations and to the embedding of particular values and preferences within the federal judiciary for decades to come.<\/p>\n The importance of federal judge replacements reaches beyond presidential legacy. This analysis examines which current and former federal judges have placed the most former clerks on the federal bench, using data from the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges maintained by the Federal Judicial Center.<\/p>\n Building on previous analysis of federal judges appointed from Reagan through the current Trump administration, this examination focuses specifically on judicial legacy through clerk placement. After correcting for inconsistencies in how the Biographical Directory formatted clerkship entries (First Liberty\u2019s Hiram Sasser noted in a comment some of the missing entries in a\u00a0previous post<\/a>\u00a0which I now corrected and\u00a0made freely accessible<\/strong>), the data reveals a clear hierarchy of influence across district, appeals, and Supreme Court levels.<\/p>\n If presidents\u2019 legacies are bound to their judicial appointments\u2014especially Supreme Court justices\u2014then the number of justices each president installs becomes a meaningful measure of lasting influence. While not every appointment produces the jurisprudence a president envisions, each represents an attempt to implant their vision of constitutional interpretation.<\/p>\n Among 20th and 21st-century presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt stands as the overwhelming leader, appointing nine Supreme Court justices during his unprecedented four terms. Taft follows with six appointments, while Eisenhower made five. More recent presidents show markedly fewer opportunities although Trump with three in his first term was a clear outlier.<\/p>\n These numbers reflect not just presidential priorities but the vagaries of timing\u2014how long justices serve, when they choose to retire, and the unpredictability of death. Roosevelt\u2019s nine appointments came during the constitutional crisis of the New Deal, while recent presidents have faced a Court where justices increasingly time their retirements strategically, often waiting for a president of their preferred ideology.<\/p>\n The downstream effects of Supreme Court clerkships can reshape American law across generations. Consider the lineage from Justice Robert Jackson to William Rehnquist, who clerked for Jackson, to John Roberts, who clerked for Rehnquist and now serves as Chief Justice. This chain of influence spans more than half a century, with each generation of jurists passing their interpretive methods to the next.<\/p>\n Supreme Court clerkships represent a relatively modern phenomenon, emerging primarily as the Court evolved through the 20th century. The number of clerks per justice has steadily increased, expanding the pool of potential judicial heirs. The data reveals which justices have been most successful at placing their clerks throughout the federal judiciary.<\/p>\n Justice Clarence Thomas leads by a substantial margin, with twelve former clerks now serving as federal judges\u2014a testament both to his long tenure and his deliberate cultivation of conservative judicial talent. Justice Anthony Kennedy follows with ten clerk-judges, including the two Supreme Court justices mentioned earlier. Justice Rehnquist placed eight former clerks, continuing his influence even after his 2005 death.<\/p>\n Justices O\u2019Connor and Ginsburg each count six former clerks in the federal judiciary, while Justice Stevens also placed six. Justice Alito has four clerk-judges, while Justices Breyer and Souter each have three. Perhaps most surprisingly, given his position as Chief Justice, John Roberts has not yet seen a former clerk become a federal judge according to Federal Judicial Center data.<\/p>\n The transmission of judicial philosophy from justice to clerk-turned-justice reveals itself most clearly in interpretive methodology. Justice Scalia\u2019s originalist approach in\u00a0McDonald v. City of Chicago<\/em>\u00a0exemplified his commitment to understanding constitutional provisions through their historical meaning. Writing about the Second Amendment\u2019s application to the states, Scalia emphasized the settled understanding that the Bill of Rights originally constrained only the federal government. His opinion methodically traced the historical record, citing Chief Justice Marshall\u2019s 1833 opinion in\u00a0Barron v. Baltimore<\/em>\u00a0and noting that the question was \u201cof great importance\u201d but \u201cnot of much difficulty.\u201d Scalia\u2019s analysis embodied his conviction that constitutional interpretation must begin with original public meaning, regardless of whether that meaning comports with modern sensibilities.<\/p>\n Justice Barrett, who clerked for Scalia, has inherited this originalist framework but applies it with a notably different rhetorical style and, at times, different conclusions. In\u00a0Haaland v. Brackeen<\/em>, her majority opinion defending the Indian Child Welfare Act demonstrated both continuity and evolution in originalist methodology. When petitioners challenged ICWA by arguing it was inconsistent with the Constitution\u2019s original meaning, Barrett\u2019s response revealed a more institutionally cautious approach than her mentor might have taken. She wrote that petitioners \u201coffer no account of how their argument fits within the landscape of our case law\u201d and noted they \u201cneither ask us to overrule the precedent they criticize nor try to reconcile their approach with it.\u201d<\/p>\n This represents a subtle but significant shift from Scalia\u2019s more aggressive originalism. Where Scalia often championed overturning precedents he viewed as wrongly decided, Barrett demanded that litigants reckon with existing doctrine and explain the broader implications of their originalist claims. Her question\u2014\u201dWould it undermine established cases and statutes? If so, which ones?\u201d\u2014reflects an originalism tempered by concerns about legal stability and institutional legitimacy. The clerk has inherited the mentor\u2019s interpretive framework but adapted it to a Court increasingly conscious of its public standing.<\/p>\n Circuit judges occupy a unique position in the federal judiciary. While they lack the Supreme Court\u2019s ultimate authority, they effectively have the final word in the vast majority of federal cases. Their opinions shape entire areas of law within their circuits, making them powerful vectors for transmitting judicial philosophy. The data on circuit judges with three or more former clerks now serving as federal judges reveals who has been most effective at extending their influence.<\/p>\n Judge David B. Sentelle of the D.C. Circuit leads all circuit judges with seven former clerks in the federal judiciary\u2014an extraordinary record that reflects both his long service and his role in shaping conservative legal thought. Judge Henry J. Friendly of the Second Circuit and Judge William H. Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit follow with six clerk-judges each. Several other prominent circuit judges, including J. Harvie Wilkinson III, J. Clifford Wallace, and Brett Kavanaugh (before his Supreme Court appointment), have placed five former clerks.<\/p>\n The concentration at the top of this list is striking. While thirty-five circuit judges have placed at least three former clerks, the gap between Sentelle\u2019s seven and the next tier reflects his particular success at cultivating judicial talent. Many of these judges served or continue to serve on influential circuits\u2014the D.C., Fourth, and Ninth Circuits appear frequently\u2014where high-profile cases and proximity to political power create natural pipelines to future judicial appointments.<\/p>\n The connection between Judge Sentelle and Justice Gorsuch illuminates how circuit court judges transmit interpretive approaches that later appear in Supreme Court jurisprudence. In\u00a0NLRB v. Canning<\/em>, Judge Sentelle\u2019s opinion for the D.C. Circuit panel exemplified his textualist methodology. Interpreting the Recess Appointments Clause, Sentelle focused on the plain meaning of \u201chappen,\u201d construing it to mean \u201carise\u201d and emphasizing textual consistency across constitutional provisions. He wrote that \u201cinconsistency [within the Constitution] is to be implied only where the context clearly requires it,\u201d citing a 1949 precedent. For Sentelle, the clause\u2019s text demanded that a qualifying vacancy must have \u201ccome to pass or arisen \u2018during the Recess\u2019\u201d\u2014a reading he found consistent with the Senate Vacancies Clause while the Board\u2019s interpretation was not.<\/p>\n Justice Gorsuch\u2019s approach in\u00a0Bostock v. Clayton County<\/em>\u00a0echoes his former mentor\u2019s commitment to text over expected applications. Writing for the Court in the landmark Title VII case, Gorsuch rejected the employers\u2019 argument that Congress could not have intended the statute to cover sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. He acknowledged the employers \u201ctake pains to couch their argument in terms of seeking to honor the statute\u2019s \u2018expected applications\u2019 rather than vindicate its \u2018legislative intent,\u2019\u201d but insisted \u201cthe concepts are closely related.\u201d Gorsuch\u2019s retort\u2014\u201dHowever framed, the employer\u2019s logic impermissibly seeks to displace the plain meaning of the law in favor of something lying beyond it\u201d\u2014could have been written by Sentelle himself.<\/p>\n Yet Gorsuch\u2019s opinion in\u00a0Bostock<\/em>\u00a0also reveals how judicial philosophy evolves across generations. While Sentelle\u2019s textualism in\u00a0Canning<\/em>\u00a0served conservative ends (limiting executive power under a Democratic president), Gorsuch\u2019s textualism in\u00a0Bostock<\/em>\u00a0produced a liberal outcome that many conservatives opposed. Both judges prioritized text over expected applications, but Gorsuch demonstrated a willingness to follow the text even when it led somewhere his mentor\u2019s ideological allies found uncomfortable. The methodology remains consistent; the outcomes can surprise.<\/p>\n District court judges handle the vast bulk of federal litigation, conducting trials, managing discovery, and making the factual findings that appellate courts later review. While individual district judges may lack the precedential authority of their appellate colleagues, collectively they shape how federal law operates on the ground. The judges who have placed multiple former clerks on the federal bench represent an often-overlooked tier of judicial influence.<\/p>\n The data reveals a more dispersed pattern than at the circuit or Supreme Court levels. Judge Michael B. Mukasey of the Southern District of New York leads with four former clerks in the federal judiciary\u2014an impressive figure given that district judges typically have fewer clerks and less name recognition than their appellate counterparts. Judge James C. Cacheris of the Eastern District of Virginia follows with three clerk-judges, while numerous other district judges have placed two former clerks.<\/p>\n The geographic concentration is notable. Many judges on this list served in high-profile districts\u2014the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of Virginia, and the District of Columbia\u2014where challenging cases and visibility create opportunities for clerks to distinguish themselves. Judges in these districts often handle national security cases, complex white-collar prosecutions, and politically sensitive litigation, providing clerks with experience that later recommends them for judicial appointments.<\/p>\n The judicial lineage from Judge Mukasey to Judge Patricia Millett Pan of the D.C. Circuit demonstrates how district court approaches to constitutional doctrine can influence appellate jurisprudence. In\u00a0Nonnenmann v. City of New York<\/em>, Judge Mukasey granted summary judgment on First Amendment claims with a terse analysis that exemplified his pragmatic approach. He concluded that the plaintiff\u2019s speech \u201cdid not address a constitutionally protected issue of public concern,\u201d disposing of the claim in a single sentence within a broader opinion rejecting multiple theories of liability. Mukasey\u2019s treatment reflected the district court\u2019s role: apply established doctrine efficiently, manage complex dockets, and move cases toward resolution.<\/p>\n Judge Pan\u2019s opinion in\u00a0Ateba v. Leavitt<\/em>\u00a0reveals a more elaborate First Amendment framework, though one that reaches a similarly government-friendly conclusion. The case involved a journalist\u2019s challenge to the White House hard pass policy. Pan acknowledged the First Amendment concerns but applied the established reasonableness standard, concluding that conditioning fuller access on Senate Daily Press Gallery accreditation was \u201cboth reasonable and viewpoint neutral.\u201d Her analysis engaged more deeply with the constitutional doctrine, addressing arguments about unbridled discretion and procedural protections while ultimately deferring to the government\u2019s access policy. Much of the difference in depth of analysis may relate to the objectives and extent of constitutional interpretation of district court versus appeals court judge.<\/p>\n The comparison reveals both continuity and evolution. Both judges applied First Amendment doctrine to uphold government restrictions, and both wrote with relative brevity. Yet Pan\u2019s opinion shows the more elaborate reasoning expected at the appellate level, engaging with constitutional standards and potential objections while Mukasey\u2019s district court opinion moved quickly to disposition. The student has learned to elaborate on the framework while reaching conclusions that likely would satisfy her mentor.<\/p>\n These patterns of clerk succession point toward a fundamental transformation in how the federal judiciary perpetuates itself. What began as an informal preference for continuity has evolved into something approaching a self-replicating system, where judicial philosophies pass from one generation to the next through carefully cultivated mentor-clerk relationships. The implications extend far beyond individual careers or even the ideological balance of particular courts.<\/p>\n First, the clerk pipeline is creating unprecedented ideological coherence within judicial camps. When Justice Scalia\u2019s originalism passes to Justice Barrett, or Judge Sentelle\u2019s textualism appears in Justice Gorsuch\u2019s opinions, or Judge Mukasey\u2019s First Amendment skepticism echoes in Judge Pan\u2019s rulings, we see not just individual judges but schools of thought reproducing themselves across levels of the federal judiciary. This coherence increases predictability\u2014probably a good thing for the rule of law\u2014but also reduces the kind of creative tension that historically produced judicial evolution.<\/p>\n Second, the emphasis on clerk credentials may be narrowing the diversity of judicial backgrounds and experiences. When Supreme Court seats increasingly go to former clerks of previous justices, and circuit judgeships follow similar patterns, the federal judiciary risks becoming a closed system that prizes insider credentials over other forms of distinction. A lawyer who built a successful trial practice, or led a civil rights organization, or served as a state judge may find themselves disadvantaged compared to someone who clerked for the right justice at the right time.<\/p>\n Third, strategic retirement is likely to become even more entrenched as justices and judges see their former clerks successfully ascend to higher courts. Why risk having your seat filled by someone who will dismantle your life\u2019s work when you can time your retirement to ensure a former clerk succeeds you? This calculus transforms judicial service from a commitment to decide cases until incapacity into a more strategic career management decision. The Court becomes less independent of politics, not more, as retirements increasingly align with electoral cycles.<\/p>\n Fourth, the concentration visible in these numbers\u2014particularly Justice Thomas\u2019s twelve clerk-judges and Judge Sentelle\u2019s seven\u2014suggests that a relatively small number of judges are having outsized influence on the composition of the federal bench. This has the effect of concentrating enormous power in the hands of a few individuals to shape the judiciary\u2019s future direction, particularly when combined with ideologically motivated appointment processes.<\/p>\n Looking forward, several questions demand attention. Will this trend continue to accelerate? Will judges who lack Supreme Court or prominent circuit clerkships find their paths to the bench increasingly blocked? Will the public\u2019s perception of judicial independence suffer?<\/p>\n Perhaps most intriguingly, will the next generation of judges\u2014those who clerked for justices who themselves were clerks\u2014develop distinctive approaches that break from their mentors\u2019 methods? Justice Gorsuch\u2019s surprising Bostock opinion suggests that judicial philosophy, even when transmitted through close mentorship, remains more dynamic and unpredictable than a simple model of replication would suggest. The clerks may learn their mentors\u2019 methods, but they apply those methods in new contexts, facing new questions, and sometimes reach conclusions that would have shocked their teachers.<\/p>\n The data presented here captures a moment in the evolution of the federal judiciary\u2014a moment when the clerk pipeline has become visible enough to analyze but perhaps not yet so entrenched that it cannot be questioned or redirected. As President Trump\u2019s second administration considers judicial appointments, and as sitting justices contemplate their retirement timing, these patterns of succession will likely intensify. Whether that produces a judiciary that is more coherent and predictable, or one that is closed and self-referential, remains to be seen.<\/p>\n What seems certain is that the era of unpredictable judicial appointments\u2014when Republican presidents might appoint liberal justices or when judges might dramatically evolve on the bench\u2014is largely over. The clerk pipeline, combined with more sophisticated vetting processes and strategic retirement decisions, has made judicial appointments far more predictable. We know not just what ideology a nominee holds, but where they learned it, from whom, and how they are likely to apply it. The federal judiciary is becoming, for better or worse, a self-perpetuating institution where each generation of judges carefully selects and trains the next.<\/p>\n Click here to read more from Legalytics\u2026<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n Adam Feldman runs the litigation consulting company Optimized Legal Solutions LLC. Check out more of his writing at\u00a0Legalytics<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Empirical SCOTUS<\/a>. For more information, write Adam at\u00a0adam@feldmannet.com<\/a>.\u00a0Find him on Twitter:\u00a0@AdamSFeldman.<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The post Former Judicial Clerks: Creating Legacies For Generations<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Legacy Matters Among a president\u2019s most\u00a0enduring legacies\u00a0are the federal judges they appoint\u2014particularly Supreme Court justices. This permanence stems from life tenure, a constitutional provision that ensures judicial independence but also transforms each appointment into a generational bet on the nation\u2019s legal future. Yet history is littered with presidential miscalculations. President Eisenhower famously called his appointment […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":136696,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-136695","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/https3A2F2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com2Fpublic2Fimages2F869eaa8c-f983-4ad7-bbaa-485c6246a7b5_1151x774-7ymDy5.png?fit=1151%2C774&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136695","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=136695"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136695\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/136696"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136695"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136695"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136695"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Consequences and Methodology<\/h3>\n
Presidential Appointments: The Foundation of Judicial Legacy<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/%24s_%21bjwX%21%2Cw_1456%2Cc_limit%2Cf_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc82000c9-0ae9-4be4-a390-5c2e3467cf32_2034x1186.png?w=1080&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
<\/a><\/figure>\nSupreme Court: Where Judicial Dynasties Begin<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/%24s_%21mSqc%21%2Cw_1456%2Cc_limit%2Cf_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F086996bb-bbfc-4879-8e6d-572ad5fd1b38_1150x725.png?w=1080&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
<\/a><\/figure>\nOriginalism Across Generations: Scalia to Barrett<\/h3>\n
Courts of Appeals: The Proving Ground<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/%24s_%2177yi%21%2Cw_1456%2Cc_limit%2Cf_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F65bb3baf-be35-48d8-a00e-cfefd180416e_1151x680.png?w=1080&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
<\/a><\/figure>\nThe Textualist Thread: Sentelle to Gorsuch<\/h3>\n
District Courts: Building From the Ground Up<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/%24s_%21r4cy%21%2Cw_1456%2Cc_limit%2Cf_auto%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F869eaa8c-f983-4ad7-bbaa-485c6246a7b5_1151x774.png?w=1080&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
<\/a><\/figure>\nFirst Amendment Doctrine: From Mukasey to Pan<\/h3>\n
Implications: The Self-Replicating Judiciary<\/h3>\n
\nLegacy Matters<\/h3>\n
Consequences and Methodology<\/h3>\n
Presidential Appointments: The Foundation of Judicial Legacy<\/h3>\n
<\/a><\/figure>\nSupreme Court: Where Judicial Dynasties Begin<\/h3>\n
<\/a><\/figure>\nOriginalism Across Generations: Scalia to Barrett<\/h3>\n
Courts of Appeals: The Proving Ground<\/h3>\n
<\/a><\/figure>\nThe Textualist Thread: Sentelle to Gorsuch<\/h3>\n
District Courts: Building From the Ground Up<\/h3>\n
<\/a><\/figure>\nFirst Amendment Doctrine: From Mukasey to Pan<\/h3>\n
Implications: The Self-Replicating Judiciary<\/h3>\n
\n