The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
When Presidents Pick Law Profs
An observation about the role of law professors in recent administrations.
One of the things that surprised me about President Trump's judicial nominations was the (relatively) large number of legal academics he tapped for the federal appellate courts. Among the law professors President Trump appointed to the federal bench were David Stras, Joan Larsen, Steve Menashi, Stephanos Bibas, Allison Eid, Neomi Rao, and (of course) Amy Coney Barrett. By comparison, there were relatively few law professors in executive branch positions during the Trump Administration, particularly compared to the Obama Administration.
By contrast, there are a large number of legal academics working throughout the Biden Administration. Here, for instance, is a list of just the environmental law professors who have taken significant executive branch positions. Yet I can think of only one legal academics who President Biden has tapped for the appellate bench thus far: Toby Heytens for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Myrna Perez, who is now a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has also been a lecturer at Columbia Law School, but I do not believe this was a full-time appointment (and many judges nominated by both presidents have worked as adjuncts).
I am not sure what explains this discrepancy, but I find it interesting. It is also possible that the gap will disappear if President Biden begins to nominate more legal academics to the courts.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The explanation seems relatively obvious to me - Trump was appointing appellate judges who want to make new law. For that, you go to academia.
Biden wants to appoint judges who apply existing law, for better or worse (YMMV). For that, you stick to those in practice.
On the other hand, in the administrative agencies, where there is more discretion to shape policy, Trump 1) appointed fewer people in general, and 2) stuck with those with backgrounds in partisan politics.
Even more obvious is that Trump was seeking out judges that would be loyal to him personally and damn whatever other legal philosophy. Same as any other appointee of his.
Trump knew perfectly and damn well that he would be in court for the rest of his life (and after thousands of lawsuits in which he was named so far there would be nothing else to think) and his worldview was that if you got the right judge then everything else would work out in your favor somehow. You only need to look at his past public statements about judges to understand that this is how he believes that judicial decisions are made.
I wish I could say he was 100% wrong on that. On the contrary given the nature of today's conservatives he has a lot more to support that view than I would like.
Imagine how bitter it is for him when a judge he appointed rule "against" him.
If that was Trump's strategy, it hasn't worked out terribly well for him.
If you're a big enough loser, sometimes strateg is overtaken by events.
Other than inheriting money, making people regret transacting with him, going bankrupt, disgracing and abusing his family, and giving voice to our society's deplorable, disaffected, bigoted losers, what has Trump been good at?
"What has Trump been good at"? Aside from bugging the crap out of sniveling, weak minded weasels that can't decide what their pronouns are on any given day of the week? That and being elected 45th President. Far more than you'll ever achieve Artie.
Yes. That isn't, despite what Trumpkins think, an accomplishment. "Pwning the libs" is something only pathetic people care about.
Not "obvious" to me. As ReaderY points out below, he basically farmed the job of picking judges out to the Federalist Society. Their priority is ideological, not loyalty to Trump personally. Most of the legal topics that Trump's behavior raises do not fit into an ideological mold anyway. Is there a "conservative" view of Executive Privilege as it relates to a former president? Not.
I disagree. Trump largely outsourced the work to the Federalist So iety, who didn’t pick based on loyalty to Trump.
I suspect Trump was shocked at the result. His picks were completely disloyal. They didn’t come through for him at all. They voted against him in the election cases when he really needed them. They were so disloyal they allowed his opponent to win.
Leonard Leo would be the right person to explain this, but obviously if you're looking for young conservative ideologues, young conservative ideologues who are law professors will have published things that will help you identify them.
Yes, exactly. I think as far as the Trump administration's judicial appointments, this is the complete explanation.
Let's face it, most Law professors are idiots. Look at the idiots they are producing who are running this country.
Disaffected, illiterate clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.
Now be nicer, BravoCharlieDelta, or your betters might instruct their children not to hire your children to tend the lawn, wash the vehicles, or deliver some Thai food.
Let's face it. By the time my kids grow up the globalists, federal class bureaucrats, and the rest of the communists are probably going to have found their fates ala French Revolution style.
Are you waiting on the Rapture, too, BCD?
Artie. Make it personal or STFU, Boomer. Resign so you can be replaced by one of your betters, a diverse.
Let's hope this trend continues.
The ideological "explanations" expressed herein are amusing examples of how to stretch anything to cover anything. Tarpaulin manufacturers should investigate.
It’s not too surprising.
Trump basically outsourced judicial picks to the Federalist Society. He picked among a few candidates vetted and recommended by them.
The Federalist Society consists mostly of law profs.
Who do you think they’re going to recommend?
I think that Trunp was suprised because he expected transactional loyalty - I scratch your back, you scratch mine - and didn’t get it. I suspect if he gets into office again, transactional loyalty is going to coumt for far more, the Federalist Society’s opinion for far less, and we’ll be more likely to see people like Giuliani appointed, people who can be counted on to be loyal, and not top-tier law school professor types, who it’s now been shown can’t be.
People who can be counted on to spout some noce-sounding bullshit and reach the right result.
I've never understood the value of appointing lawyers, academic or otherwise, to non-legal policy-making positions.
It seems to me that someone who knows the technical/economic/political aspects is who you want. The legal stuff can come from staff attorneys.
Cultural capture. Legal formalisms have become so critical to the regulatory state that lawyers successfully make the case that putting them in charge cuts out the middleman, and minor details like technical expertise can be provided by staff SMEs.
Perhaps a different explanation. Just as the CEOs of old who thought that understanding products, suppliers, and markets was the most important skill and you could hire finance people to work in the back office have largely been outstaged and bought out by high-profile finance people, the older sort of people who thought technical and policy expertice was the important skill in public administration have largely been sued out by the lawyers.
Just as the markets are the true rulers of business, the courts are the true rulers of government.
It could be that more law professors were reluctant to work for the Trump administration either for personal reasons or due to concerns about future career prospects in academia, while an appointment by Trump to the federal bench does not carry such baggage.
Isn't Biden applying race and sex quotas in his judicial selections? That limits the pool a great deal.
Also, Biden is apparently consciously looking for public interest lawyers rather than 'biglaw' people or academics. Which seems reasonable enough.
We are seriously comparing 7 out of 54 over 4 years versus 1 of 13 over one year?
Assuming same rate, Biden would appoint 4 professors. Maybe he picks up the pace, 7 is easily doable.
The numbers are too small for any comparison to mean anything.
agreed
If you need a reliable liberal hack that is going to put politics above principle or even the rule of law then go find yourself someone who oversees the intellectual reform gulags of America.
Jimmy didn't read the OP again.
Point of curiosity:
Have any law professors appointed to the federal bench continued to teach?
I learned evidence from a sitting federal judge, now deceased. One day, he had to schedule a hearing in the classroom because he couldn't get back from the law school to the courthouse soon enough. He invited us to stay and watch. It was quite entertaining.
It’s pretty common.
Justice Barrett recently taught a course after getting on the Supreme Court.
https://law.nd.edu/news-events/news/amy-coney-barrett-teaches-fall-2021-intensive-course/
A course here or there is not exactly what I was thinking of. I was thinkin of them staying an active member of the faculty teaching regular courses at maybe a somewhat reduced load.