Retired U.S. Court of Appeals Judge David Tatel, in his forthcoming memoir Vision: A Memoir of Blindness and Justice, reflects on his clerkship hiring practices, voicing regret over his preference for graduates from elite law schools, including Harvard. As reported by Law.com, Tatel acknowledges that this approach caused him to overlook many qualified applicants from lower-ranked institutions.
“One problem was that, with so many applicants to sort through, judges (myself included) tended to focus on applications from elite schools, such as Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and my own Chicago,” Tatel admitted. This led to good candidates slipping through the cracks. “I know I missed many excellent applicants. I’d do things differently today,” he wrote.
Tatel’s concerns go beyond elitism; he critiques a “new, secretive and disturbing clerk-hiring plan” devised by the Federalist Society. This strategy funnels a specific subset of students loyal to a conservative legal philosophy into top clerkships, effectively reinforcing ideological biases within the judiciary. Tatel warned, “As first-years, they’ve barely learned what ‘originalism’ is and are certainly in no position to decide whether that’s the best or only way to interpret the Constitution.”
The implications of this system are profound, potentially exacerbating ideological echo chambers within elite clerkships and, ultimately, within the judiciary itself. Tatel’s memoir sheds light on these complex dynamics, urging a reevaluation of clerkship hiring practices and a broader consideration of merit over educational pedigree.
For more insights from Judge Tatel’s retirement reflections, read the full article on Above the Law.