Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit delivered a series of remarks on the evolving landscape of American law and the value of personal and professional relationships in the legal field in a visit to campus in early March.
Speaking as SMU Dedman Law Jurist in Residence to students during lunchtime in Hillcrest Classroom in the Underwood Law Library on Tuesday, March 4, Judge Sutton touched on themes ranging from isolation to polarization to the promise of state constitutional law, drawing on decades of experience both on the bench and in public service.
Judge Sutton has built a distinguished legal career marked by public service, academic contributions, and extensive courtroom experience. Appointed by President George W. Bush, and confirmed in 2003, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, he now presides over cases from nine district courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.
A graduate of Williams College and The Ohio State University College of Law, Judge Sutton clerked for the Honorable Thomas Meskill of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit before serving under Supreme Court Justices Lewis F. Powell, Jr. and Antonin Scalia. Before his judicial appointment, he practiced law in Columbus, Ohio, and served as Ohio’s Solicitor General from 1995 to 1998, arguing 12 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous cases in the state and federal appellate courts.
Beyond the bench, Judge Sutton has been an adjunct professor at The Ohio State University College of Law and a visiting lecturer at Harvard Law School. He has also chaired the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference, the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, and the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules.
Elected to the American Law Institute in 2006 and its Council in 2017, Judge Sutton continues to shape American jurisprudence through his leadership and scholarship, including two books about the increasing relevance of state constitutional law: 51 Imperfect Solutions and Who Decides? His career exemplifies a commitment to legal excellence, public service, and the evolution of judicial thought, ensuring the continued integrity of the legal system.
Breaking Down the Echo Chamber
Judge Sutton expressed concerns about some of the limits of our public discourse. There seems to be a tendency, he worried, “to engage only with like-minded people and to listen to podcasts of people that reinforce our views.” He urged students to engage with people who have a variety of worldviews. For Judge Sutton, such engagement is essential for personal growth and ultimately for the advancement of legal thought.
His call was clear: step outside of self-reinforcing circles to embrace challenging viewpoints. This, he explained, is not merely a social nicety but a necessity for the robust development of legal ideas and practices.
Unlikely Alliances on the Bench
A memorable part of Judge Sutton’s remarks was his account of an encounter with Justice Scalia—a moment that underscored the unexpected power of personal gestures in bridging ideological divides. During a visit to see his mentor, Judge Sutton noticed roses sitting near the Justice’s desk. He recounted that, at the end of his visit, Justice Scalia noted, “It's Ruth's birthday. I need to bring her these roses.”
The gesture of giving two-dozen roses to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a justice who had markedly different views about constitutional interpretation from Justice Scalia, carried a deeper significance. Judge Sutton responded to the Justice that, even after being married for over 30 years at the time, he had never given his wife that many roses in total. Justice Scalia retorted, “You ought to try it some time.”
Judge Sutton didn’t want to give the Justice the last word. He responded, “Justice Scalia, you have served on the Court with Justice Ginsburg for over two decades. Find me one 5-4 case of any consequence when you got her vote. These roses have been a waste of your time and money.” Scalia’s response was unexpected and poignant. With more seriousness than Sutton anticipated, he replied,
“Well, Jeff, some things are more important than votes.”
Judge Sutton gave him the last word. The exchange left a lasting impact on Judge Sutton. The moment was not about the flowers at all. It was a reminder that even in the either-or, zero-sum world of law, personal relationships can transcend the usual calculus of votes and legal victories. It underscored for him that the true value of relationships on the bench lies in mutual respect and understanding that enrich personal and professional lives.
A Journey Through Public Service
Judge Sutton also shared personal insights about his own career path. He recounted his early years at the firm Jones Day and his reluctant transition to public service when he was offered the position of Ohio’s Solicitor General. “The best job I had in law, better than my current job as a judge, is a job I almost didn’t take,” he admitted. His initial attraction was driven by the superficial appeal of a prestigious title—Solicitor General. Otherwise, he felt like he would be taking a step down if he took the role.
However, upon assuming the role, he discovered that the position offered more than just an elevated title. It provided him with a direct connection to the legal process and the opportunity to work on cases that significantly impacted public policy. Despite the pay cut, the experience proved transformative. Judge Sutton’s willingness to take a risk in order to serve the public not only enriched his career but also paved the way for his eventual appointment to the federal bench.
His career journey illustrates a common theme: professional growth sometimes requires stepping out of one’s comfort zone and taking chances. The role of Solicitor General allowed him to gain hands-on experience in the courtroom and take on diverse opportunities that private practice rarely provides.
The Case for a “Second Shot”
A central element of Judge Sutton’s remarks was his advocacy for using state constitutional law as a “second shot” in helping a client. He observed that many attorneys tend to focus exclusively on federal courts, often overlooking the additional avenues for legal redress available in state courts. “If you’ve got a client and the federal courts have raised a red stop sign, why don't you try the second shot?” he urged.
Judge Sutton explained that state constitutions can provide alternative routes for legal argumentation that federal courts might not consider. He drew on his own experiences of early setbacks in the Ohio Supreme Court—losses in significant cases such as school funding disputes, school voucher disputes, and criminal procedure challenges—that ultimately pushed him to rethink his views about the roles of the state and federal courts in protecting rights. He came to see state courts as laboratories for innovative legal solutions and promising ways to address our American preoccupation with judicially enforceable rights.
This perspective challenges the long-standing belief that the U.S. Supreme Court or federal courts are the sole gatekeepers of constitutional rights. Instead, Judge Sutton argued that state courts, with their unique approaches and customized localized options, often serve as effective vehicles for advancing justice.
A Balanced View of Federalism
Throughout his remarks, Judge Sutton offered a balanced view of American federalism. He dispelled the myth that “the federal courts always get it right” and countered the notion that state courts are less equipped to find the right answer to a difficult legal problem. Instead, he emphasized that both systems contribute to a dynamic dialogue in the evolution of constitutional law.
Judge Sutton cited several landmark cases to illustrate his point. He discussed the enduring debates over school funding, noting that both federal and state courts have played critical roles in addressing inequities. Pointing to cases from Ohio and Texas, he demonstrated that state courts have been instrumental in providing remedies where the federal system may have fallen short.
He also touched on the evolution of marriage equality. By tracing the legal journey—from early challenges in the 1970s to more recent national applications—Judge Sutton illustrated how state-level actions can set the stage for broader change. His account reinforced the idea that American jurisprudence benefits from the interplay between federal and state rulings, with each system reinforcing and complementing the other.
A Clear Message for the Future
Judge Sutton delivered his remarks with straightforward, practical advice. His message was clear: the future of American law depends on the willingness of legal professionals to explore every available avenue—whether that means forging unlikely friendships, taking risks in public service, or leveraging the potential of state constitutional law.
A short Q&A that followed his remarks encapsulates Judge Sutton’s practical wisdom, offering aspiring legal professionals clear, candid guidance on clerkships, advocacy, and the vital role of the judiciary in American democracy.
Q: What’s your biggest piece of advice for someone thinking about whether to seek a clerkship?A: “Get a clerkship,” Judge Sutton joked. “My second piece of advice is apply far and wide, and use your professors.” He said, “It's the rare professor that is not thrilled when a student comes by to seek advice and help. It turns out, that's why they wanted to be professors. They can write recommendations, they can help you strategize, they might have relationships with judges. Do not miss out on that opportunity.” He noted that summer jobs are valuable too, since those employers often have relationships with judges. And, don’t underestimate the power of affinity, recalling how a shared interest—like playing soccer—can sometimes give you an edge. And if there is a blemish in your resume or transcript, “Find a way to turn a lemon into lemonade,” he advised.
Q: What should one consider when weighing a state-level clerkship versus a federal clerkship?A: “I’m a huge proponent of state clerkships,” Judge Sutton said. He encouraged students to apply in both directions, but explained why state courts are vital: “In a given year, there are about 60 million state court cases versus 400,000 federal cases—that’s where the action is.” He cited a concurring opinion by Texas Supreme Court Justice Evan Young—one he teaches—to counter the myth that federal or U.S. Supreme Court clerkships are inherently superior. “Find me the federal judge at any level that is writing better opinions than Evan Young, to use one example. There are so many good state judges right now, and there's more action—more cases—in the state courts. That makes being a State High Court Justice an appealing job, one that encounters many critical issues and one that has last word on many of them.”
Q: Can you share an experience that highlights the value of working with people who think differently?A: “One of the great gifts and blessings in my life was clerking for Justice Powell and Justice Scalia,” he said. “They were different in so many ways. Powell was pragmatic; Scalia was deeply interested in doctrine. Working for both allowed me to learn how to speak both languages.” “When you're a lawyer,” he added, “you have to stand in someone else's shoes, see the world through their eyes, and fix their problems.” You will never develop that skill set, he pointed out, unless you work with people who think differently from you.
Q: How do oral arguments affect your decision-making?A: “As an advocate, it was an existential question,” he said. “Why do this work if it was not making a difference?” “Still, my answer has evolved over 22 years. I can say with confidence that the path to outcome can be affected by arguments.” On occasion, hard cases can be flipped by oral arguments, he said, but more often they simply change the path to the decision. “My advice is, if it’s not going well, pause, take a step back.” Silence helps. Regroup and find a way to repackage your best argument.
Q: Are there other areas for advocacy that you would recommend for young attorneys?A: “There’s so much going on in local governments,” he said. “It’s probably the government that affects us the most on a day-to-day basis, so I think that is a really good place to go.” He also pointed to immigration and interest-group work. His only caution was this: “Zealots are the weakest advocates.” It’s hard to listen to people, he explained, who only see one side of an issue.
Q: How do you view the judiciary’s role in maintaining the rule of law in today’s political climate?A: He pointed to the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, saying, “I think we’re really lucky to have him as Chief at this moment. He really cares about the courts. He knows the importance of the credibility of judicial institutions.” That evenhandedness and respect set the tone for how to navigate a contentious political climate, said Judge Sutton. Everyone, he added, should read the Chief Justice’s 2025 annual report. While criticism of judges is to be expected and understandable, he added, the most effective criticisms should be reserved for decisions that lie outside the range of reasoned debate.
Original source can be found here.