When a rule is named after you — even just colloquially — it’s either a very good thing or a very bad thing.
I can remember a friend regaling the better half of a bar with stories of her grippy sock vacation. It may not sound like an entertaining subject for an impromptu story time, but she had a tight five about her stay. A highlight was describing how she used her lawyerly acumen to manipulate the interpretation of the regulations — or lack thereof — on the ward to launch an assault on the medicine cabinet. As she hilariously finished, “now there’s a rule.” And yes, staff on the floor still call it the Jane Doe Rule (totally her real name, except not at all).
Or, you know, it could be the result of a cause you’re notoriously passionate about like how the Copyright Term Extension Act became known as the Sonny Bono Act.
Anyway, this is much more that first situation. The federal judiciary is now considering whether they need a rule to stop judges from hiring people who are infamous for saying, “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE.” Emphasis entirely Crystal Clanton’s own.
For those unfamiliar, Clanton is an up-and-coming lawyer who secured prestigious federal clerkships with Judge Corey Maze of the Northern District of Alabama, the Eleventh Circuit’s Judge William Pryor, and even the Supreme Court’s own Justice Clarence Thomas. The only problem is, Clanton was very famously fired from the far-right Turning Point USA when a racist text she sent coworkers became public.
That’s right, Clanton used to work at conservative student group Turning Point USA. But in 2017, reports surfaced that she texted coworkers, “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all . . . I hate blacks. End of story.” Despite this notoriety, this was far from the end of Clanton’s story. She bounced back with a job with Ginni Thomas (Clarence’s wife), even moving in with the Thomases for a time. She then was admitted to George Mason University’s ASS Law, but it was getting those clerkships that caught the attention of folks who care about judicial ethics and the piss-poor perception of “neutral” and “impartial” judges hiring someone famous for such problematic behavior — without so much as a Notes App apology. But, there was a formal investigation and the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit found there was no misconduct on the part of the judges who hired Clanton.
Now the U.S. Judicial Conference is wondering if maybe that *should* be misconduct. As reported by Reuters, whether new ethical guidance is needed for hiring clerks in the wake of Clanton’s resume-building has been referred to the Committee on Codes of Conduct.
Also potentially implicated by any rule change is the recent publicity stunt hiring decision made by judges to boycott graduates from certain schools which have, for various political reasons, irritated the judges.
And if ethical guidance should come from this situation, it will absolutely be known as the Clanton Rule.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @[email protected].
#Federal #Judges #Hire #Clerks #History #Problematic #Behavior #Shouldnt
