E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Rumor Has It: What Are the Rules for Supreme Court Clerks?
Neil Siegel
I had thought the rules were what Chief Justice Rehnquist told my co-clerks and me: keep confidential what you learn about the inner workings of the Court, and under no circumstances may you talk to the press. Perhaps there was uncertainty about whether the rules applied always and forever (that is, decades after the clerkship ended). But there was zero uncertainty about whether the rules applied during the very year we clerks were at the Court—or during a good number of subsequent years.
Now it appears that the rules may have changed. Rumor has it that certain clerks in certain chambers were revealing the Court’s deliberations to certain members of the news media while NFIB v. Sebelius was pending and within days after it was handed down. It would sure be illuminating if those responsible would own up to it and let the rest of us know their understanding of the duty of confidentiality that Supreme Court clerks owe the Conference.
Short of that unlikely possibility, perhaps the Court as a whole could issue some clear guidance to clerks past, present, and future. I learned all sorts of things during my clerkship that would be of interest to students of the Court and members of the news media. Surely every other Supreme Court clerk possesses similar information. If some clerks are going to spread rumors about vote switches, other clerks may be well situated to discuss their frequency. If there is a good reason why different rules should apply to different clerks, that reason eludes me. Posted
4:16 PM
by Neil Siegel [link]