Like many of the commenters to Eugene's post, I agree that would-be federal court clerks should take civil procedure and basic criminal law and procedure. You will get a lot of cases in that area. Less obviously, I think it's very helpful to have taken legislation and antidiscrimination law.
Most federal law is statutory law. Moreover, the recent trend is towards enactment of statutes that are more complicated and detailed than those of the early New Deal-era regulatory state. A good legislation course can teach you a great deal about statutory interpretation that will help you deal with cases. In addition, if you become a litigator, it will be very handy for your later career in practice.
As for antidiscrimination law, Title VII employment discrimination cases are a large part of the docket in many circuits. Title VII cases are very different from constitutional Equal Protection Clause discrimination cases; it's much easier for the plaintiff to win under Title VII, especially in cases where's there is no direct proof of intentional discrimination by the defendant. So you should not assume that you have learned what you need to know about antidiscrimination law just from taking an intro constitutional law course.
Finally, although it won't necessarily help you with the task of writing opinions and bench memos, try to read up on the War on Drugs. Drug cases are the lion's share of the federal criminal docket and you will probably see a lot of them as a clerk on most federal courts. Indeed, the majority of all federal prisoners are incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses. Even if you aren't categorically opposed to the War on Drugs like I am, you may still be troubled by the fact that we are incarcerating smalltime drug users and dealers for extremely long sentences, and by the reality that the War on Drugs has led to extensive serious civil liberties violations and to military-style police raids that have killed or injured numerous innocent people. Although I don't agree with all of its points, I highly recommend Albert Gross and Steven Dukes' America's Longest War as possibly the best reasonably short summary of the War on Drugs and the great harm it has done to our society.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Advice to Future Federal Court Law Clerks:
- Judges, Clerks, and Ideology:
- Preparation for Soon-to-Be Judicial Clerks:
I don't think taking particular pre-clerkship courses is all that helpful in securing a clerkship, either (though it probably helps to have an overall selection of courses that shows a general interest in the law and in litigation specifically).
Civil Procedure and Criminal Law are staples, and probably required everywhere. Federal Courts and Criminal Procedure are more likely to be electives, especially Federal Courts.
For any student, but particularly for those interested in a clerkship, I would recommend looking for writing opportunities. And this doesn't necessarily mean big papers or law review articles. If there are classes with regular, short writing assignments, take them. If there are clinical programs that give you the opportunity to write briefs or other documents, think of doing them. Writing is the main thing you will be doing as a clerk (and a big part of being a decent lawyer). And its a skill which gets scant attention.
Also, it's difficult to say whether any particular drug-related criminal was arrested for distribution or personal use, since that issue is generally decided based on the amount in possession or charge pleading instead of what was actually happening.
It does. But it does NOT include people who were convicted of dealing, but were also convicted of a violent crime such as assault or murder. The stats (and the sentencing guidelines) don't distinguish between "violent" gangs and "nonviolent" ones. As a general rule, your sentence for dealing drugs is exactly the same regardless of whether other members of the gang engaged in violence or not.
In addition, as many scholars have pointed out, most of the violence associated with drug gangs is caused by the War on Drugs itself (which prevents peaceful dispute resolution through property and contract law).
Finally, I question the possible implicit assumption that defendants deserve a higher penalty if other members of their gang engaged in violence even if they themselves did not.
Most federal law is statutory law. Moreover, the recent trend is towards enactment of statutes that are more complicated and detailed than those of the early New Deal-era regulatory state. A good legislation course can teach you a great deal about statutory interpretation that will help you deal with cases. In addition, if you become a litigator, it will be very handy for your later career in practice.
</blockquote>
I found poetry classes, even foreign language poetry classes, to be especially useful when dealing with statutes. They teach you to pay close attention to small changes.
The one thing that poetry classes don't teach is how to deal with mistakes. Too much legislation is so poorly constructed that you spend your time trying to figure out how to enforce a statute with obvious and not-so-obvious drafting errors.
It is increasingly common, but not (yet) universal.
Of course -- who argued the contrary?
Germanicus:
Orin - This is slightly beside your point, but if drugs were legal, nobody would be going to violent street gangs to get their fix.
Presumably right -- did any one argue to the contary?
I question the possible implicit assumption that defendants deserve a higher penalty if other members of their gang engaged in violence even if they themselves did not.
Who made this assumption?
It's remarkable when you ask questions about these topics -- people who respond seem to go out of their way to discuss issues you didn't raise!!! Perhaps future law clerks should study why that is.
SWAT teams stack up and rush a door, counting on their armor and shields to take a hit. They don't shoot unless their is a threat. They only use things like flash bangs and riot gas.
The military uses a totally different system. If they fell a building is a threat they breach the structure with force and use deadly force at each room.
I get that this is a libertarian blog, and I understand and sympathize with the frustration with the so-called War on Drugs. I'm also enough of a legal realist to know that there's lots of room in many cases to fudge results without overtly defying existing rules.
But lobbying Congress is the appropriate constitutional method for fighting unjust drug laws, not a federal judicial clerkship. If you can't agree to support and defend and uphold the laws and treaties of the United States --- including the death penalty --- don't take the gig.
In my law school Civil Procedure was divided into two courses, Civ Pro I (mandatory in first year) and Civ Pro II (non-mandatory but encouraged in later years).
Criminal Law was mandatory in the first year, Criminal Procedure was divided into two non-mandatory courses for the later years.