The Appellate Project
banner
theappellateproj.bsky.social
The Appellate Project
@theappellateproj.bsky.social
370 followers 750 following 490 posts
A nonprofit organization fostering emerging leaders as they build a more just and representative appellate field. Learn more at http://theappellateproject.org
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
When appellate practitioners bring different lived experiences to their work, they bring depth that strengthens legal analysis and builds public trust in the courts.
During TAP's recent Seventh Circuit visit, Berenis Ibarra López, law clerk at the Western District of Texas, witnessed this principle in action. Her reflection cuts to the heart of why diverse backgrounds matter at every level of the judiciary.
Representation in appellate spaces isn't an abstract ideal. It can have real consequences for how law affects communities.
TRUTH: Top law firms and federal judges value strong state clerkship experience, especially at the appellate or supreme court level. 

It's a stepping stone, not a dead-end.
As we continue to demystify common myths around state court clerkships, we tackle Myth #3: "A state court clerkship won’t help if you aspire to work in Big Law or the federal bench."
A state court clerkship can be a powerful stepping stone towards diverse, high-level legal careers.
As a clerk, you're often deeply involved in drafting memos and proposed opinions on these challenging matters that directly impact people's lives.

Ready for a substantive challenge? Discover the intellectual rigor of state court clerkships on our blog: lnkd.in/gRc4KesY
LinkedIn
This link will take you to a page that’s not on LinkedIn
lnkd.in
MYTH: "State court work is less intellectually rigorous and impactful."

TRUTH: State courts frequently decide nuanced, first-impression issues involving constitutional rights, family law, criminal justice, property disputes, and more – often setting vital precedent.
State court clerkships involve deeply engaging work on critical legal questions.

Today in our series debunking state court clerkship myths, we’re addressing another common myth about state court clerkships:
Don't underestimate the power and prestige of state court experience. Read more about the clerkship process: theappellateproject.org/appellate-sy...
Guide to Clerkships — The Appellate Project
theappellateproject.org
They provide a strong foundation for diverse legal careers – including roles in state/federal courts, academia, and top firms – and can be more accessible pathways, especially for first-gen and underrepresented students.
This week, we’re demystifying common myths around state court clerkships, starting with Myth #1: "Only federal clerkships are prestigious or career-boosting."

TRUTH: State court clerkships offer the chance to grapple with complex legal questions shaping communities.
State supreme & appellate court clerkships carry enormous influence and prestige.

Last week, we shared resources that explain the influence and impact the state courts have on issues affecting people’s rights.
When communities see judges who understand their lived realities interpreting the constitutions that govern their daily lives, those rulings are more likely to be trusted and respected.
That's why diversifying state appellate benches matters for more than representation—it's also about trust. Courts derive their legitimacy from the people they serve.
And because state appellate courts have the final word in 98% of cases, the perspectives on those benches become the perspectives that define the law for most Americans.
Many legal disputes in America are resolved in state courts, not federal ones, and they interpret federal law, shape constitutional protections, and issue rulings that SCOTUS will never review.
State Court Report recently shared several articles full of essential facts about state courts and constitutions that reveal how the legal system really operates.
When state courts base their rulings on these grounds, those decisions are shielded from Supreme Court review and the state court has the last word.
Under a legal doctrine called "adequate and independent state grounds," the U.S. Supreme Court may not review state court decisions that rest on state constitutions or procedural rules.