2026-09-14T09:00:29.667Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/14/politics/supreme-court-clerks-judicial-polarization
长期以来,最高法院法律书记员的任职经历一直是备受珍视的资历,如今律所开出的签约奖金最高可达70万美元。但如今,这一资历 increasingly 成了获得自身法官职位的敲门砖,确保即便现任大法官离任多年后,志同道合的门徒仍将在美国塑造法律体系。
这些在该国最具权势的大法官身边的抢手书记员职位,已成为右翼势力的孵化器。前书记员们正站在围绕总统权力、枪支权利、堕胎限制和削弱投票权的保守主义事业的前沿。他们以倡导者身份提起诉讼,且越来越多地以法官身份作出裁决。
唐纳德·特朗普总统比以往任何一位白宫前任都更看重最高法院书记员的任职资历。在他的第一任期内,他任命的三名最高法院大法官均为前书记员,他任命的上诉法院法官中有40%也是前书记员。在他的第二任期内,这一比例升至60%。
即便未来总统打破特朗普的模式,就像乔·拜登那样优先考虑其他经历和多元化背景,特朗普的遗产也已奠定。法官享有终身任期,通常比多届总统任期都长。特朗普在任还有两年多时间,目前已任命66名最高法院和美国上诉法院法官,超过本世纪任何一位总统。
在特朗普第二任期内经参议院确认的上诉法院任命者中,包括曾为已故大法官安东宁·斯卡利亚担任书记员的本杰明·弗劳尔斯;曾为大法官塞缪尔·阿利托和艾米·科尼·巴雷特担任书记员的惠特尼·赫曼多弗;以及曾为克拉伦斯·托马斯大法官担任书记员的詹妮弗·马斯科特。
弗劳尔斯、赫曼多弗和马斯科特都是离开 Chambers 后仍与保守派导师保持一致的前书记员之一。弗劳尔斯曾担任俄亥俄州副检察长,期间他领导共和党各州挑战拜登政府一项允许联邦计划生育资金流向提供堕胎转诊服务的医疗保健提供商的政策。最近在私营律所工作期间,弗劳尔斯代表一名支持特朗普限制出生公民权举措的法学教授。
这些书记员的职业轨迹反映出顶级法律界日益封闭的现状。最高法院大法官的招聘范围局限于一小部分曾为特定一批下级法院法官担任过书记员的律师。掌控法院的保守派大法官本质上正在复制自身的理念。
“大法官们非常擅长集中自身权力,”范德堡大学法学教授、研究书记员招聘模式的政治学家特蕾西·乔治说道。
乔治将最高法院书记员职位价值的上升归因于诸多因素,包括法律界的精英主义,以及公众对大法官在堕胎和枪支管制等重大问题上裁决的关注度提高。
“这是一个吸引人才的权力中心,”她在接受美国有线电视新闻网(CNN)采访时表示,她指出,雄心勃勃的书记员如今会争取在知名下级法院法官手下担任两到三次书记员,以提高被最高法院录用的机会。她说,一些下级法院法官会招募顶尖学生,以提升自身地位,并树立“输送者”法官的声誉。
乔治表示,书记员职位提升联邦法官任职机会的最新趋势,进一步加剧了本已狭窄的圈子。
“我们授予法官令人难以置信的权力,包括终身任期,前提是他们不会被特定的政治观点或结果偏好所左右,他们能够保持中立,”她说。“但随着他们的发展,他们变得非常注重结果。”
现任“输送者”法官包括特朗普第一任期任命的美国上诉法院法官,如哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院的格雷戈里·卡塔斯和第八巡回上诉法院的戴维·斯特拉斯,两人此前都曾为托马斯担任书记员;以及第五巡回上诉法院的安德鲁·奥德姆,他此前曾为阿利托担任书记员。
卡塔斯在接受CNN采访时强调,他寻找的是能够很好融入他的 Chambers 的优秀候选人,无论他们在书记员晋升阶梯上的下一步是什么。“他们必须在这里赢得我的尊重,一旦做到了,我就会支持并为他们游说,”他说。
在2026-27学年的最高法院庭审期,卡塔斯的前法律书记员将有六人在大法官身边任职:两人为阿利托服务,两人为尼尔·戈萨奇大法官服务,一人为首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨服务,一人为布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官服务。
https://www.cnn.com/
最高法院阻止密苏里州为中期选举使用新的亲共和党国会选区地图
3:05 • 来源:CNN
这些数据印证了美国司法系统顶层的封闭性。
亚当·费尔德曼是最高法院分析师、数据驱动型法律分析网站Legalytics的创始人,他追踪了各级法院的书记员情况。他表示,如今的大法官实际上正在选拔下一代法官,形成了一个“闭环”。
费尔德曼为CNN回顾过去25年的情况后发现,特朗普在任命最高法院书记员方面远超此前的总统。
特朗普任命的最高法院和美国上诉法院法官中,有44%曾担任书记员,相比之下,拜登在任命最具声望的法官职位时,仅有11%的人选为前书记员;巴拉克·奥巴马总统的这一比例为25%;乔治·W·布什总统为15%。
多项研究表明,占据多数席位的右翼最高法院大法官,以及 remaining 在左翼的三名大法官,习惯性地从意识形态上志同道合的下级法院法官中挑选志同道合的法律书记员。
斯坦福大学法学教授迈克尔·麦康奈尔是一位保守派学者,他在1980-81学年曾为自由派大法官威廉·布伦南担任书记员,后来由乔治·W·布什总统任命为美国上诉法院法官。他表示,这种模式并非一直如此僵化。
随着美国社会和法院内部分化加剧,共和党任命的保守派和民主党任命的自由派在法律立场和招聘模式上都更加固守己见。
麦康奈尔告诉CNN,这对渴望获得书记员职位的法学学生产生了影响,“温和派实际上处境相当艰难。他们实际上没有立足之地。”
九名大法官每人每庭审期都会雇佣四名书记员,共计36个职位,均为一年任期。这一职位的持久价值源于他们能够近距离接触制定国家法律的男男女女。
书记员们会了解影响大法官的因素,以及他们作为一个整体如何相互协作。他们在筛选每周提交给法院的数百起上诉案件,以及决定审理哪些案件方面发挥着重要作用。
雇佣年轻律师协助研究和撰写意见书的传统,通常可以追溯到最高法院大法官霍勒斯·格雷(1882-1902年在任)。多年后,大法官路易斯·布兰代斯(1916-1939年在任)和费利克斯·弗兰克福特(1939-1962年在任)以招募顶尖法学毕业生而闻名,这些毕业生在一年任期结束后,会利用这一经历在学术界发展或推进进步政策。
如今的模式是法院转型和保守派联邦主义者协会数十年影响力的产物。该协会于1982年作为全国校园团体成立,已故大法官斯卡利亚当时在芝加哥大学任教,是其教师顾问之一。
2020年特朗普宣布选择巴雷特接替露丝·巴德·金斯伯格时,他强调巴雷特“获得了年轻律师能获得的最高荣誉之一,曾在最高法院为安东宁·斯卡利亚大法官担任书记员”。
联邦主义者协会的领导人自里根时代以来就一直在帮助共和党总统筛选司法候选人。该协会广泛的校园人脉也推动右翼法学院学生获得司法书记员职位。
“多年前,联邦主义者协会就着手打造一个年轻保守派法学院学生和律师的人才输送管道,以改变法律文化,”前联邦主义者协会执行理事、现任该协会董事会联合主席伦纳德·利奥在采访中表示。“这显然正在结出果实。”
这样的后果令进步人士感到担忧。
“我们看到的不只是封闭性,”乔治敦大学法学教授米歇尔·古德温告诉CNN。“这种复制几乎是克隆式的,从他们的毕业院校到成长环境。看不到学术多样性。这也显示出一种经过精心策划的政治观点,对最高法院进行了操纵,而此时最高法院已变得如此党派化。有人可能会轻描淡写地说‘左翼也会这么做’。但左翼并没有这么做。”
在第一任期内,特朗普公开依赖联邦主义者协会,该协会倡导类似的优先事项:强化行政权力、减少监管权威,以及在宗教和其他文化问题上的整体传统主义议程。此后特朗普与利奥关系恶化。
但联邦主义者协会在保守派阵营中根深蒂固,无法回避。特朗普第二任期任命的几乎所有美国上诉法院法官都承认参与过联邦主义者协会的活动。
如今转型后的司法系统和书记员模式的另一个体现,体现在律师查尔斯·库珀的经历上。他曾是最高法院书记员,在里根政府时期担任司法部高级官员,后来创立了一家专注于右翼事业的精品律所。
“我们相当公开、明确、毫不掩饰地持保守立场,”曾在平权行动、基于种族的政策、枪支管制和同性婚姻问题上提起诉讼的库珀在采访中说道。
随着保守派主导最高法院,库珀的律所提升了帮助其助理获得书记员职位的能力。目前有六名曾在库珀与柯克律所工作过的律师在最高法院为本庭审期服务,两人在卡瓦诺的 Chambers,一人分别在罗伯茨、托马斯、阿利托和戈萨奇的 Chambers。
这种保守派闭环在库珀本人20世纪70年代末寻找书记员职位时根本不存在。当时九名大法官中只有一人被视为坚定不移的保守派,威廉·伦奎斯特,在 Chambers 中被称为“独行侠”。(伦奎斯特在1973年罗伊诉韦德案中投下反对票,一再倾向于执法部门而非刑事被告,并反对民权立法。)
库珀在1978-79学年为伦奎斯特工作;未来的首席大法官罗伯茨两年后也为伦奎斯特担任书记员。罗纳德·里根总统于1986年提拔伦奎斯特为首席大法官;2005年罗伯茨接任伦奎斯特的职位。
今年8月,特朗普为田纳西州的美国地区法院职位任命了库珀与柯克律所的近期校友,这是三级司法系统的第一层级。
塞缪尔·阿德基森曾在白宫法律顾问办公室担任特别助理,协助政府处理近期的法院案件,包括特朗普诉斯劳特案,最高法院在该案中裁定总统可以解雇独立机构的负责人。该判决推翻了1935年的一项最高法院先例,该先例使监管机构免受总统干预。这也体现了罗伯茨法院和特朗普政府一致的案件类型。
特朗普在8月14日的Truth Social帖子中宣布阿德基森的任命时,提到了他的两个上诉法院职位,以及阿德基森四年前在罗伯茨手下担任的收尾书记员工作。
总统称赞阿德基森为“斯劳特案的历史性胜利”所做的工作。
巧合的是,在这个日益相互关联的法律界中,罗伯茨撰写了特朗普诉斯劳特案的判决意见。
Inside the pipeline enshrining Trump’s conservative legacy on the federal bench
2026-09-14T09:00:29.667Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/14/politics/supreme-court-clerks-judicial-polarization
Experience as a Supreme Court law clerk has long been a prized credential, now drawing signing bonuses up to $700,000 at law firms. But it has increasingly become a ticket to a judgeship of one’s own, ensuring that long after the current justices are gone, like-minded protégés will be shaping the law in America.
The coveted clerkships at the side of the country’s most powerful jurists have become incubators for the right wing. Former clerks are at the vanguard of conservative causes centered on presidential power, gun rights, abortion restrictions and diminished voting rights. They are bringing cases as advocates and, increasingly, deciding cases as judges.
President Donald Trump, more than any of his predecessors in the White House, has been attracted to the credential of a Supreme Court clerkship. During his first term, all three of his Supreme Court appointees were former clerks, as were 40% of his appellate judges. That number is up to 60% for his appellate appointees in his second term.
Even if a future president breaks Trump’s pattern, as Joe Biden did when he prioritized other experience and diversity, the Trump legacy will be set. Judges have lifetime tenure and usually outlast many presidential terms. With two more years left in office, Trump has already named 66 judges to the Supreme Court and US appeals courts, more than any other president this century.
Among the Trump appointees confirmed by the Senate for appellate courts this second term: Benjamin Flowers, who clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia; Whitney Hermandorfer, who clerked for Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett; and Jennifer Mascott, who clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.
Flowers, Hermandorfer and Mascott were among the former clerks who remained in sync with their conservative mentors after leaving chambers. Flowers served as Ohio state solicitor general, where he led GOP states’ challenge of a Biden administration policy that let federal family-planning funds go to healthcare providers that made abortion referrals. More recently in private practice, Flowers represented a law professor supporting Trump’s effort to limit birthright citizenship.
These clerk trajectories reflect a legal world growing even more insulated at the highest levels. Supreme Court justices hire from a small cross-section of lawyers who have previously served a discrete group of lower court judges. The conservative justices who control the bench are essentially replicating themselves.
“The justices are really good at concentrating their own power,” said Vanderbilt University law professor and political scientist Tracey George, who has studied clerk hiring patterns.
George attributes the rising value of a Supreme Court clerkship to many factors, including elitism across the legal profession and greater public awareness of the justices’ decisions on salient issues, such as abortion and gun control.
“It’s a power center that attracts people,” she told CNN, observing that ambitious law clerks now seek two or even three prior clerkships with prominent lower court judges to increase their chances of being hired at the Supreme Court. Some lower court judges recruit star students, she said, to try to raise their own status and foster the reputation as “feeder” judges.
George said the latest development of clerkships enhancing the chances of a federal judgeship reinforces an already narrow world.
“We grant judges incredible power, including life tenure, on the premise that they are not captured by particular political perspectives or outcome preferences, that they can be neutral,” she said. “The way they’ve evolved, they’re very outcome-focused.”
Among current “feeder” judges are US appellate judges appointed by Trump in his first term, such as Gregory Katsas (of the DC Circuit US Court of Appeals) and David Stras (of the 8th Circuit), both of whom earlier clerked for Thomas, and Andrew Oldham (on the 5th Circuit), who earlier clerked for Alito.
Kastas emphasized in an interview with CNN that he is looking for strong candidates who will fit in well at his chambers, irrespective of their next step on the clerk ladder. “They have to earn my respect when they’re here, and once they do, I will support and advocate for them,” he said.
For the 2026-27 Supreme Court session, six of Katsas’ former law clerks will be serving justices: two for Alito, two for Justice Neil Gorsuch, one for Chief Justice John Roberts, and one for Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
https://www.cnn.com/
Supreme Court blocks Missouri’s attempt to use new Republican-friendly congressional map for the midterms
3:05 • Source: CNN
The numbers back up the insularity at the top of America’s judiciary.
Adam Feldman, a Supreme Court analyst who founded the data-driven Legalytics site and has tracked clerks at all levels of the judiciary, said today’s justices are essentially selecting the next generation of judges, creating a “closed loop.”
Looking over the past 25 years for CNN, Feldman found that Trump far outpaced prior presidents in the appointment of Supreme Court clerks.
Forty-four percent of Trump’s appointments to the Supreme Court and US Courts of Appeals were clerks, compared with Biden turning to former clerks 11% of the time for the most prestigious appointments to the bench, President Barack Obama, 25%, and President George W. Bush, 15%.
Multiple studies show that Supreme Court justices on the right wing, who hold the majority, and the three justices remaining on the left wing, habitually turn to ideologically compatible lower court judges for like-minded law clerks.
The pattern was not always so rigid, said Stanford law professor Michael McConnell, a conservative scholar who was a law clerk in the 1980-81 term for liberal Justice William Brennan and later appointed to a US appellate court by President George W. Bush.
Reflecting the rising polarization in the country and on the court, Republican-appointed conservatives and Democratic-appointed liberals have been digging in deeper on their legal positions and hiring patterns.
McConnell told CNN that has had consequences for law students aspiring to clerkships, “It’s actually quite difficult for moderates. They don’t really have a home.”
Each of the nine justices hires four clerks per session, a total of 36 slots, for the one-year posts. The enduring value of the position arises from the proximity to the men and women who decide the law of the land.
Clerks come to understand what influences justices and how they interplay with the nine as a whole. They play a strong role in the screening of hundreds of appeals that arrive at the court each week and decisions on which cases to hear.
The tradition of hiring a young lawyer to assist in research and the writing of opinions is commonly traced to Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray (1882-1902). Years later, Justices Louis Brandeis (1916-1939) and Felix Frankfurter (1939-1962) were known to seek elite law graduates who would, after their one-term session, capitalize on that experience in academia or work on progressive policy.
Today’s model is a byproduct of a transformed bench and the decades-old influence of the conservative Federalist Society, founded as a national campus group in 1982. The late Justice Scalia, then teaching at the University of Chicago, was one of its faculty advisers.
When Trump announced his selection of Barrett to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020, he stressed that Barrett had “received one of the highest honors a young lawyer could have, serving as a clerk on the Supreme Court for Justice Antonin Scalia.”
Federalist Society leaders have helped screen judicial candidates for Republican presidents dating to the Reagan era. The group’s vast campus connections have also propelled right-wing law students into judicial clerkships.
“Many years ago, the Federalist Society set out to create a talent pipeline of young conservative law students and lawyers to transform the legal culture,” Leonard Leo, a former Federalist Society executive and now co-chairman of its board of trustees, said in an interview. “It’s clearly bearing fruit.”
Such consequences trouble progressives.
“We’re not just seeing insularity,” Georgetown University law professor Michele Goodwin told CNN. “This replication is clone-like, where they went to school, where they grew up. And you don’t see academic diversity. It also shows a very cultivated, political point of view, a rigging of the Supreme Court, at a time when the court has become so deeply partisan. Someone could be reductive and say, ‘The left would do this too.’ But the left didn’t do this.”
During his first term, Trump openly relied on the Federalist Society, which espoused similar priorities of robust executive power, less regulatory authority, and an overall traditionalist agenda on religion and other cultural issues. Trump has since had a falling out with Leo.
Still the Federalist Society is so entrenched in conservatism, it cannot be avoided. Nearly every US appellate judge appointed in Trump’s second term acknowledged participating in Federalist Society activities.
Another manifestation of today’s transformed judiciary and clerk patterns is seen in the experience of lawyer Charles Cooper, a former Supreme Court clerk who became a top Justice Department official in the Reagan administration and then founded a boutique law firm pursuing right-wing causes.
“We’re quite openly, professedly, unashamedly, conservative,” Cooper, who has argued against affirmative action and race-based policies, gun control and same-sex marriage, said in an interview.
With the conservative dominance at the high court, Cooper’s firm has bolstered its ability to help its associates obtain clerkships. Six lawyers who had worked at Cooper & Kirk are at the Supreme Court for its current session, two in the chambers of Kavanaugh, and one each with Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch.
Such a conservative loop simply did not exist when Cooper himself was seeking a clerkship in the late 1970s. Only one justice of the nine was then seen as an unyielding conservative, William Rehnquist, nicknamed “The Lone Ranger” in chambers. (Rehnquist voted against Roe v. Wade in 1973, repeatedly favored law enforcement over criminal defendants, and rejected civil rights legislation.)
Cooper worked for Rehnquist in the 1978-79 session; future Chief Justice Roberts clerked for Rehnquist two years later. President Ronald Reagan elevated Rehnquist to chief justice in 1986; Rehnquist was then succeeded by Roberts in 2005.
In August, Trump tapped a recent alum of the Cooper & Kirk firm for a US district court post in Tennessee, at the first level of the three-tier judiciary.
Samuel Adkisson, a special assistant in the White House counsel’s office, assisted in the administration’s recent court cases, including Trump v. Slaughter, where the Supreme Court ruled that the president could fire the heads of independent agencies. That decision reversed a Supreme Court precedent from 1935 that insulated regulatory agencies from presidential interference. It also typified the kinds of cases on which the Roberts Court and Trump administration align.
In Trump’s Truth Social announcement on August 14 regarding Adkisson, the president referred to his two appellate court posts and Adkisson’s culminating clerkship four years ago with Roberts.
The president touted Adkisson’s work toward the “Historic Win in the Slaughter case.”
It happened that Roberts, at the helm of this ever more interconnected legal world, wrote that Trump v. Slaughter decision.
发表回复