Image 01 Image 03

Twelve Federal Judges Now Say They Won’t Hire Clerks From Yale Law School

Twelve Federal Judges Now Say They Won’t Hire Clerks From Yale Law School

“I have no confidence that they’re being taught anything.”

We recently noted that one judge was doing this. Now it’s twelve judges. Shouldn’t this be setting off alarm bells at Yale Law?

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

Citing Concern for Free Speech, 12 Federal Judges Say They Won’t Take Clerks from Yale Law School

A dozen federal judges say they are no longer hiring clerks from Yale Law School, citing a slew of scandals that they say have undermined free speech and intellectual diversity.

In addition to Fifth Circuit judge James Ho, who announced on Thursday that he would no longer hire law clerks from the nation’s top-ranked law school, 12 federal judges—both circuit and district court jurists—told the Washington Free Beacon they are joining the boycott.

“Students should be mindful that they will face diminished opportunities if they go to Yale,” said a prominent circuit court judge, whose clerks have gone on to nab Supreme Court clerkships. “I have no confidence that they’re being taught anything.”

With one exception, the judges made clear this is a policy they are imposing on future—not current—Yale Law School students.

A spokeswoman for the law school did not respond to a request for comment.

If the boycott catches on among other right-leaning judges, it could deal a serious blow to Yale Law School, which has maintained the top spot in the U.S. News and World Report rankings since the publication began ranking law schools in the 1980s. Clerkships, particularly on the federal bench, are coveted jobs in the legal profession, and many students choose Yale over other elite law schools because its graduates have historically had the best shot of clerking for prominent judges. A boycott could change that calculus, forcing Yale administrators to rein in activist students and colleagues if they want to keep attracting the best and brightest—and if they want to maintain even a fig leaf of ideological diversity.

The judges joining the boycott, all of whom requested anonymity in order to speak freely, cited a series of incidents where they say free speech has come under attack at Yale Law, starting with a September 2021 controversy in which administrators pressured second year law student Trent Colbert to apologize for an email in which he referred to his apartment as a “trap house.” The law school’s diversity director Yaseen Eldik, also described Colbert’s membership in the conservative Federalist Society as “triggering,” according to leaked audio obtained by the Free Beacon.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


What about Harvard Law? It is just as bad. They planning on boycotting them also?

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to kyrrat. | October 6, 2022 at 2:59 pm

    I tend to think this will spread to places like Haahvahd as well.

    Steven Brizel in reply to kyrrat. | October 6, 2022 at 6:51 pm

    This is a welcome shot across the bow of the Ivies which are expensive left wing interrogation camps

    George_Kaplan in reply to kyrrat. | October 6, 2022 at 9:16 pm

    I was just about to ask the same thing in light of LI’s article about two-thirds of Harvard law students walking out on a pro-life scholar because non-Woke law is double plus ungood.

Dunno why they grandfathered the current group of students. They are equally not being taught anything valid, and the fact that they have already paid for an education that the real world has now rejected ought to result in a slew of tasty lawsuits and student activism.

Unfortunately, it is very likely too late to stem the tide of totalitarian thought that has completely infiltrated and infused our law schools. Indeed the entire legal system now teeters on the brink of disaster!

SeiteiSouther | October 7, 2022 at 2:29 pm

I love the 5th Circuit for their sensible rulings, and I love the judges even more now after this.

It’s a mistake to call these judges “right leaning”. That gives their critics something to attack. Call them principled and supporters of free speech, because that’s what they are.