The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Way To A Circuit Court Nomination Is To Lose A Landmark Supreme Court Case
President Biden nominated the non-prevailing attorneys in Dobbs and SFFA to the First and Fourth Circuits, respectively.
It seems the primary driver behind many of President Biden's judicial nominees has been concerns for diversity. (We'll see if a similar factor governs who replaces Biden if he does not seek a second term.) But for at least two of Biden's circuit court nominees, a credential has been to lose a landmark Supreme Court case.
Julie Rikelman argued Dobbs, and was confirmed to the First Circuit in June 2023.
Today, President Biden nominated Ryan Park, the North Carolina Solicitor General, to the Fourth Circuit. Park argued Students for Fair Admission v. UNC.
An Article III confirmation is something of a consolation prize.
Park graduated from Harvard Law School in 2010. He clerked for three years:
He served as a law clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice David H. Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court from 2013 to 2014, for Judge Robert A. Katzmann on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 2011 to 2012, and for Judge Jed S. Rakoff on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from 2010 to 2011.
One would think that he was hired by Justice Ginsburg, but that is not accurate. He was hired by retired Justice David Souter, and was detailed to Justice Ginsburg. I think it is misleading for Park to list Ginsburg first, and Souter second. For example, Justice Gorsuch was a White clerk, detailed to Kennedy, and Judge Sutton was a Powell clerk, detailed to Scalia.
This is not the first time I've offered this criticism of Park. Way back in January 2015, Park was profiled in The Atlantic. He wrote all about his experience with RBG, but never actually mentioned he was a Souter clerk. At the time, I observed:
Is this bad etiquette to slight the Justice you work for, and only mention him in passing in the author bio? I have no doubt Park did extensive work for RBG, and worked closely with her, but the standard practice is to focus on the judge who hired you. This is almost as bad as some people who say they clerked for Justices Breyer or Alito, when they actually clerked for Judges Breyer or Alito (you know who you are!).
Ditto for people who clerked for "Justice Breyer" before his elevation to the Supreme Court.
Poor Justice Souter. Not even his former clerks give him his due.
One final note. Does Park have the twelve years of experience that the ABA requires? If we exclude the three years of clerking, Park would be right at eleven years. But who cares what the ABA thinks!
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
Not a day goes by that this guy doesn’t think about Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Or you about Josh.
Or you about me.
Speaking of Justices that were nominated after losing big cases, Kagan's first oral argument as Solicitor General was Citizens United's reargument. Kagan failed to pivot away from the government's previous blunder in the first oral argument, causing the Court to bitch slap BCRA.
Despite that and her different judicial philosophy, Scalia himself recommended that Obama nominate her to the bench.
While I dont agree with many of Kagan's votes on the SC, her opinions are generally solid from a constitutional perspective.
"A federal law requiring all Americans to eat broccoli would be constitutional." (see here)
Solid from a constitutional perspective?
(I should hope not!)
“Everybody has to buy food sooner or later,” he said. “Therefore, you can make people buy broccoli.” - Anton Scalia
Republicans have been awarding judicial positions as consolation prizes to culture war casualties — superstitious, obsolete bigots who champion unearned privilege but can’t stand modern America — for decades.
It won’t change the course of that culture war, which is not quite over but has been settled.
Definitely a surefire way to know if a person is qualified for the bench is to check the color of their skin, or do a genital inspection.
Those are clear determinants to merit. CULTURE WAR WINNERS!
That would explain the bizarre concentration of white males among Republican judicial nominees. A great point to make at a white, male, right-wing blog whose target audience starts with white, male bigots.
I think we saw a casualty of the culture war last Thursday night, no? 😉
If you had a mirror handy, sure.
“…If we exclude the three years of clerking, Park would be right at eleven years. But who cares what the ABA thinks!…”
And, if we exclude his attendance at law school, he’s never received a basic legal education!!!
And Josh is correct–if we exclude those 3 years of intensive legal experience doing clerking for some of the most prestigious judges and justices in the country…then he’d have 3 fewer years experience. Josh’s math checks out.
Comparing this to Justice Thomas may be instructive. If we exclude Clarance Thomas’s time as assistant atty general in Missouri, his time as a legislative aide to Sen. Danforth, and his time at the Dept of Ed and the EEOC . . . why, he was patently underqualified to be appointed as a dogcatcher, let alone as an appellate judge, as HW Bush did.
I was shocked to learn, today, that, if we blithely exclude legal experiences, it will result in people showing far less impressive legal backgrounds and credentials.
Great post, Josh!!!
Sarcasm aside, does clerking typically count toward the ABA's 12 year clock? Josh seems to be saying that it doesn't. Now, if that's true you can certainly disagree with the logic of such a policy, but you shouldn't direct your ire at Josh.
An absolutely fair point. Possibly. 🙂
I admit that I have no idea what the default "rule" has been re clerking. But, surely, as the OP, our good professor is the one who has the obligation to have already done this research AND to inform us gentle readers. Josh could have added, "...Clerking is never 'counted' by the ABA in terms of calculating the 12 years threshold, as can be seen by [cite to a history of evaluations of past nominees; a cite to written ABA guidelines, etc]. {or something along those lines}... "
Surely the onus is on Josh to explain why his assertion has merit, yes? (But I'll admit that I have a bit of a hair-trigger re spurious or silly assertions from Josh, based on the thousand dumb things he's posted over his time here at the VC. My snark is acknowledged...although I'm not sure if I'm ready to apologize for it just yet. LOL)
I found this informative- https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2010/jun/28/jon-kyl/kyl-says-american-bar-association-calls-12-years-e/
It seems that simialr arguments were raised against Kagan, and against counting her work as clerk to Mikva and Marshall.
I don;t know if the OP is correct, but his claims are certainly not mertiless, and the ABA rules to seem to requires courtroom experience, not just work in the judicial field.
It is misleading for Josh Blackman to describe himself as a law professor or legal scholar without admitting that his position (at a shitty law school) was purchased for him by Leonard Leo rather than earned by merit?
"Poor Justice Souter. Not even his former clerks give him his due."
Can you blame them?
The Capitol Steps had a great song, "If You Knew Souter, Like I Know Souter" which seems to be unavailable on the web since their demise. At least some of their CDs are available on Amazon.
They were a fun group.
"I think it is misleading for Park to list Ginsburg first, and Souter second."
But you were not quoting Park, you were quoting the White House press release. Do you have some evidence that Park wrote that release? If not, shouldn't the criticism be directed at the White House?
Justice Souter certainly "hired" Park, but, as JB informs us, Park was "detailed" to RBG. Did Park do substantial work for Souter, who was, after all, retired, or was he "detailed" to RBG, an actual, sitting Supreme Court Justice, right away? Either JB knows and isn't telling us or he doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm not sure what's worse.
Christ, what an asshole.
FYI, I care what the ABA thinks. I don't care what the FedSoc thinks. Both are on the endorsement menu. My pick is as good as yours.
Poor Blackman, not enough chops to get a SCOTUS clerkship or even a nomination to District of North Dakota.
They proved their commitment to murdering infants and promoting racism, what more could Biden and modern Progressives want.
But for at least two of Biden's circuit court nominees, a credential has been to lose a landmark Supreme Court case.
Josh really needs to take statistics class before publishing crap like this. If two nominees had both played on their high school basketball teams would that imply that that was an important credential?
He'd likely fail.