The process of selecting law clerks for the U.S. Supreme Court has long been scrutinized for its exclusivity and influence. Each year, the Supreme Court’s justices hire four law clerks, selecting candidates who typically possess impeccable academic credentials and have completed multiple lower court clerkships from so-called “feeder” judges. This elite group is often chosen through an extensive network of former clerks, involving a rigorous multi-stage interview process that can start as early as law school, long before the candidates have commenced their first clerkship assignments. These positions are highly coveted, with clerks gaining access to sensitive court information, thus significantly increasing their value in the private sector where law firms offer substantial signing bonuses for their expertise and insights.
Yet, the current clerk hiring system has drawn criticisms for concentrating too much power in the hands of relatively inexperienced individuals and fostering an environment of exclusivity. Legal analyst Josh Blackman has referred to this as a “law clerk cartel,” suggesting it mirrors a sort of guild that can heavily influence legal proceedings and the broader legal market. Bonuses for former clerks can exceed $700,000, reflecting the high demand for their insider knowledge and perceived influence.
There are calls within the legal community for reform measures to break this concentrated power structure. Proposals have been made suggesting that justices could require their clerks to dedicate two years to public service following their clerkship, thereby encouraging a focus on public interest over financial gain. Such a reform could also potentially distribute legal expertise more equitably across different sectors.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has initiated some changes in her clerk hiring process. Unlike her colleagues, she limits applications to those who have completed an appellate clerkship, thereby discouraging the trend of law students vying for Supreme Court clerkships before even completing their initial clerkships. Additionally, she has eradicated any unofficial channel or influence within the application procedure, stating resolutely that only submitted materials will be considered, preventing any form of bias or unfair advantage through personal endorsements.
Further suggestions for reform include the idea of offering work experience in lower courts to clerks, encouraging them to ground their professional development outside the “marble palace” of the Supreme Court, which could impart more real-world experience and practical skills. This could potentially mitigate any disconnect from realities faced in different judicial settings nationwide.
These discussions form part of a wider discourse on Supreme Court reform, advocating for changes that could enhance the operational transparency and efficacy of the court, as explored in-depth through a comprehensive series of recommendations aimed at fostering a more open and inclusive legal system that remains grounded in its public-serving mission.