A justice’s most lasting legacy – SCOTUSblog

(Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States)

Home Newsletters, EMPIRICAL SCOTUS

A justice’s most lasting legacy

By Adam Feldman, on Nov 14, 2025

Empirical SCOTUS is a recurring series by Adam Feldman that looks at Supreme Court data, primarily in the form of opinions and oral arguments, to provide insights into the justices’ decision making and what we can expect from the court in the future.

Among a president’s most enduring legacies are the federal judges they appoint – particularly 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’s legal future.

Yet history is littered with presidential miscalculations. President Dwight D. Eisenhower supposedly called his appointment of Earl Warren as chief justice one of his “biggest mistakes,” as Warren became a liberal stalwart for over a decade. Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter, both nominated by Republican presidents, evolved into some of the court’s most liberal members. Had Republican presidents consistently installed reliably conservative justices since the mid-20th century, the court would have been far more conservative than it actually was (and perhaps even is today).

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 – or perhaps explicit – assurances that they will be replaced by someone they helped shape, typically a former clerk. This, combined with the fact that so many such clerks now serve as judges on the lower courts, has had profound effects – and will continue to do so – on the federal judiciary. 

Judicial successors 

Supreme Court clerkships represent a relatively modern phenomenon, emerging primarily as the court evolved through the 20th century. The number of clerks allocated to each justice has steadily increased, from two until 1969, to three in the 1970s, and to four in 1980. This has also expanded the pool of potential judicial heirs. Justice Byron White was the first justice to have clerked for a former justice – Chief Justice Fred Vinson in his case. Chief Justice William Rehnquist clerked for Robert Jackson, and Stevens for Wiley Rutledge. Stevens was confirmed in 1975. Of the next several justices – Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Souter, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg – none held a Supreme Court clerkship. 

Then came Justice Stephen Breyer, confirmed in 1994, who had clerked for Justice Arthur Goldberg. The majority of justices appointed after 1994 held Supreme Court clerkships at one point in their careers – Chief Justice John Roberts for Rehnquist, Elena Kagan for Thurgood Marshall, Neil Gorsuch for Kennedy (although he was originally hired by White before his retirement), Brett Kavanaugh for Kennedy, Amy Coney Barrett for Scalia, and Ketanji Brown Jackson for Breyer. Neither Samuel Alito nor Sonia Sotomayor clerked at the Supreme Court level, leaving them a minority in this regard.

Indeed, since Kennedy retired in 2018, the phenomenon of justices being replaced by their clerks has become the norm rather than the exception. As noted, not one but two of Kennedy’s former clerks were appointed by President Donald Trump in succession: Gorsuch filled Scalia’s seat, which had remained vacant longer than any in court history, and Kennedy’s own seat went to Kavanaugh. According to Politico, Kennedy’s backroom conversations with Trump prior to his departure may have been used to facilitate a transition. For Trump, this was 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.

Panorama_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_Building_at_Dusk.jpg

This trend of former clerks joining the court continued with Barrett, a Scalia clerk, replacing Ginsburg after her death, and Jackson, a Breyer clerk, succeeding her former mentor. 

The downstream effects of Supreme Court clerkships can reshape American law across generations. Consider the lineage from Jackson to Rehnquist, who clerked for Jackson, to Roberts, who clerked for Rehnquist. And this chain of influence now spans more than half a century, with each generation of jurists passing their interpretive methods to the next.

Breaking down the numbers

But that is not the full picture. The data also reveals how widespread former Supreme Court clerks are in the federal judiciary as a whole.

Thomas leads by a substantial margin, with 12 former clerks hired as federal judges – a testament both to his long tenure and his deliberate cultivation of conservative judicial talent. Kennedy follows with 10 clerk-judges, including the two Supreme Court justices mentioned earlier. Rehnquist placed eight former clerks, continuing his influence even after his 2005 death.

Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Ginsburg each count six former clerks in the federal judiciary, and Stevens also placed six. Alito has four clerk-judges, while Breyer and Souter each have three. (Perhaps most surprisingly, given his position as chief justice, Roberts has not yet seen a former clerk become a federal judge.)

Implications: the self-replicating judiciary

These patterns of clerk placement, both on the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court itself, point toward a fundamental transformation in how the federal judiciary perpetuates itself. What began as perhaps 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. And the implications extend far beyond individual careers or even the ideological balance of particular courts.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: A justice’s most lasting legacy – SCOTUSblog

#2025 #america #clerks #donaldTrump #education #federalJudiciary #health #history #influences #justice #justices #libraries #library #libraryOfCongress #opinion #politics #resistance #science #scotus #scotusblog #supremeCourtOfTheUnitedStates #trump #trumpAdministration #unitedStates

Federal judges call SCOTUS’s shadow docket “inappropriate,” “opaque,” and a “judicial crisis” – Daily Kos

by TheCriticalMind

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday, October 11, 2025 at 4:45:27p PDT

The current Supreme Court is making unprecedented use of the ‘shadow docket’. Reaction has been mixed. Liberals say the Court is a rubber stamp enabling Trump’s imperial presidency. MAGAs argue that SCOTUS’s conservative bloc is doing God’s work by thwarting anti-democratic rulings by unelected, activist, lower court judges.

However, politics aside, Supreme Court rulings impact how the Judiciary does business. To understand the practical effect of the Court’s use of the shadow docket, the New York Times polled US District and Appeals Court judges.

It reported its findings in an article titled: Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders.”

The subhead summarized the substance of the piece. To wit:

Dozens of sitting judges shared with The Times their concerns about risks to the courts’ legitimacy as the Supreme Court releases opaque orders about Trump administration policies.

The Times wrote to “hundreds of federal judges across the country” — and 65 replied. The respondents are not named. But the paper said presidents of both parties had appointed them. And that, while there was a difference in degree, Judges across the political spectrum worried about SCOTUS’s high-handedness. In the NYT’s words:  

Of the judges who responded, 28 were nominated by Republican presidents, including 10 by Mr. Trump; 37 were nominated by Democrats.

Adding: While those nominated by Democrats were more critical of the Supreme Court, judges nominated by presidents of both parties expressed concerns.

The paper asked the judges if they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: The Supreme Court has made appropriate use of the emergency docket since President Trump returned to office. Overall 72% said SCOTUS’s use was inappropriate, 9% hedged, and 18% (all Republican) said it was appropriate.

Tellingly, while almost all Democrats said SCOTUS was on the wrong side of the line, nearly half the Republicans concurred. The conclusion is inescapable. When half your team thinks your side stinks, it stinks.  

 Federal judges call SCOTUS’s shadow docket “inappropriate,” “opaque,” and a “judicial crisis”

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Federal judges call SCOTUS’s shadow docket “inappropriate,” “opaque,” and a “judicial crisis”

#2025 #America #DailyKos #DonaldTrump #Education #EmergencyOrders #FederalJudiciary #Health #History #JudicialCrisis #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #RuleOfLaw #SCOTUS #SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStates #TheNewYorkTimes #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

Vance says Roberts is ‘profoundly wrong’ about Supreme Court’s role to check the executive branch – ABC News

Vance says Roberts is ‘profoundly wrong’ about Supreme Court’s role to check the executive branch
The White House has argued Trump has plenary power on immigration.

By Hannah Demissie, May 21, 2025, 4:50 PM,36:47

Chief Justice Roberts rebukes Trump’s call for impeachment of judge

In a rare on-camera appearance on Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts rebuked President Donald Trump’s call to impeach a judge who ruled against his administration’s immigration policies.During a wide-ranging podcast interview with the New York Times posted Wednesday, Vice President JD Vance said Chief Justice John Roberts was “profoundly wrong” for recent comments he made on the Supreme Court’s role to check the excesses of the executive.”I thought that was a profoundly wrong sentiment. That’s one half of his job. The other half of his job is to check the excesses of his own branch,” Vance stated. “You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they’re not allowed to have what they voted for. That’s where we are right now,” Vance continued.

Vance’s comments occurred while discussing the administration’s immigration policies and initiatives, which have been met with swift legal actions. Vance said the White House believes Trump “has extraordinary plenary power.”

Read more: Vance says Roberts is ‘profoundly wrong’ about Supreme Court’s role to check the executive branch – ABC NewsSource Links: Vance says Roberts is ‘profoundly wrong’ about Supreme Court’s role to check the executive branch – ABC News

#Balance #ExecutiveBranch #FederalJudiciary #StopTrump #SupremeCourt #ThreeBranches #Trump #Vance #VicePresident #WrongIdeas

Vance says Roberts is ‘profoundly wrong’ about Supreme Court’s role to check the executive branch – ABC News

Vance says Roberts is ‘profoundly wrong’ about Supreme Court’s role to check the executive branchThe White House has argued Trump has plenary power on immigration.By Hannah Demiss…

DrWeb's Domain

‘The shield that protects our democracy’: Democrats celebrate Biden judicial nominations #justice #FederalJudiciary

This article by Ariana Figueroa first appeared in the States Newsroom @statesnewsroom and in the Georgia Recorder @georgiarecorder , republished with permission

https://cobbcountycourier.com/2025/01/the-shield-that-protects-our-democracy-democrats-celebrate-biden-judicial-nominations/

‘The shield that protects our democracy’: Democrats celebrate Biden judicial nominations

This article by Ariana Figueroa first appeared in the Georgia Recorder, republished with permission.

Cobb Courier

@samlitzinger

"“Federal courts won't refer #SupremeCourt #Justice #ClarenceThomas to attorney general over ethics”"

#Trump's usage of stochastic terrorism has won

No one in the #FederalJudiciary has the courage to raise a voice lest their children be obliquely threatened with assault and murder

And as you say, nobody dares stop it

The United States of America is lost

#SCOTUS

@AssociatedPress @politics-AssociatedPress

The judge, the law enforcement officials . . . #MAGA s that sit in judgment. Yeah, how about that?

These ppl with their racist, white supremacy agendas will have to be dealt with in some way. #DOJ should repeat charges. Trespassing and treason fit.

https://apnews.com/article/new-jersey-state-police-trooper-capitol-riot-ec7637f65e0910fe5bb890cfaf98bf5e?utm_source=flipboard&utm_medium=activitypub

#Jan6 #FederalJudiciary #MAGA #Abovethelaw

Retired New Jersey State Police trooper who stormed Capitol is sentenced to probation

A retired New Jersey State Police trooper who stormed the U.S. Capitol with a mob of Donald Trump supporters has been sentenced to probation instead of prison. Videos captured Michael Daniele, 61, yelling and flashing a middle finger near police officers guarding the Capitol before he entered the building on Jan. 6, 2021. Daniele expressed his regret for his role in the attack before U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta sentenced him on Friday to two years of probation, including 30 days of home confinement.

AP News
Judge Aileen Cannon Failed to Disclose a Right-Wing Junket

Cannon, whose oversight of the Donald Trump classified documents case has garnered widespread criticism, has repeatedly violated a rule requiring that federal judges disclose their attendance at private seminars.

ProPublica

@anneapplebaum
Sadly, many reactionary federal judges ended up on the bench because a small group of civically illiterate progressives have voted for third party presidential candidates who had 0 percent chance of winning an election.

I regard Ralph Nader as the Gavrilo Princip of the 21st century.

#FederalJudiciary #ThirdParties #CivicIlliteracy #RalphNader #GavriloPrincip #USPolitics #EnablingAurocracy

Another "Dictator on Day One" heads up.
Weird Donald Trump wants to make it a crime to criticize judges he appointed.
It seems that "free speech absolutists" are only absolute about their own speech.
#DonaldTrump #WeirdDonald #FederalJudiciary #ProTrumpJudges #SCOTUS #Republicans #FreedomOfSpeech #DictatorOnDayOne #USPolitics #Election2024 #VoteBlueNoMatterWho

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-proposes-ban-on-criticizing-pro-trump-judges.html

Trump Proposes Ban on Criticizing Pro-Trump Judges

Over the weekend, Donald Trump expressed his belief that public criticism of judges and Supreme Court justices who rule in Trump’s favor ‘should be punishable by very serious fines and beyond that.”

Intelligencer
@sadele2 There is a federal statute which requires all federal judges, including #SupremeCourt justices, to #recuse themselves from any case “in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” but there is no effective enforcement mechanism to apply this vague law to a Supreme Court justice. #Democracy #FederalJudiciary #SCOTUS #broken not subject to law #corruption continues #financialdisclosures are a fraud. We have for years now been witnessing real time the unraveling of rule of law