Adam Feldman argues that the most enduring impact a Supreme Court justice leaves behind isn’t just their written opinions — it’s the judicial network they build through their law clerks. His analysis of recent data shows that the clerkship system allows a justice’s legal philosophy to spread across generations of judges.
A major trend Feldman highlights is the rise of “judicial succession” through former clerks. Several current justices — including Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson — previously clerked on the Court themselves, forming clear mentorship lineages. Feldman notes that since Justice Kennedy retired in 2018, he has been succeeded by two of his own former clerks, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, illustrating how justices can shape who follows them.
Beyond the Supreme Court, many former SCOTUS clerks now serve as federal judges, extending the influence of the justices they trained. Feldman points out, for example, that Justice Clarence Thomas has a particularly large number of former clerks who have gone on to become federal judges, helping spread his interpretive approach throughout the judiciary.
He describes this pattern as a “self-replicating judiciary,” and argues it has several consequences:
-
It reinforces certain interpretive philosophies (such as originalism) throughout the federal bench.
-
It narrows the pool of judicial nominees, since former clerks become especially attractive candidates.
-
It encourages strategic retirements — justices may time their departures to increase the chances of being replaced by a like-minded former clerk.
-
It concentrates long-term judicial influence in the hands of a small number of senior justices.
Feldman warns that this dynamic could gradually reduce judicial independence. If justices are thinking about their successors and their ideological legacy, they may act more like planners of judicial dynasties than neutral arbiters. Over time, he suggests, this could make future judicial appointments more predictable, as nominees increasingly come from established clerkship pipelines.
In Feldman’s view, a justice’s most powerful legacy may not be any single opinion they write but the network of jurists they mentor — and the ideological continuity that network preserves across decades.
🧭 Why It Matters
-
Highlights how clerkship networks influence the future of the judiciary far beyond a justice’s own tenure.
-
Raises concerns about judicial diversity, as clerk pipelines may favor a narrow pool of ideological and career backgrounds.
-
Suggests that judicial retirement decisions are becoming more strategic and “political” in nature.
-
Impacts the predictability of future appointments: instead of surprise picks, justices could be grooming their own successors.
-
Raises long-term questions about the independence of the judiciary, as mentorship may carry ideological continuity rather than generational change.
⚖️ Key Legal / Institutional Outcomes
-
There’s a growing trend of SCOTUS justices being succeeded by their former clerks, reinforcing judicial philosophies.
-
Many former SCOTUS clerks now occupy significant judicial roles, expanding a justice’s influence beyond the Supreme Court.
-
The article identifies a shift toward retirement timing based on potential successors, not just personal reasons.
-
This mentorship-driven model may narrow the pool of future nominees to trusted insiders rather than outsiders.
-
If the trend continues, the current Court’s ideological continuity could be maintained for decades, reducing turnover unpredictability.
