Ilya Shapiro (Author at The Cato Institute)

Don't Dump on Free Trade (Commentary)

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:00:00 EST

The new Supreme Court term is so far more notable for cases denied review than those actually on the argument calendar, and it has otherwise been overshadowed by both the election and the financial crisis. Even the most interesting-sounding cases—such as the "fleeting obscenity" case, Feder...

Cato Scholar Comments on Pleasant Grove City v Summum Supreme Court Case (Scholar Comments)

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:00:00 EST

The Summum case —- the most quixotic First Amendment case to hit the Court since Bong Hits for Jesus -— will turn on whether the Court sees it as a speech or religion case.

If the former, the Court will grapple with what constitutes government speech, what defines a public forum, and whether the criteria the town set for accepting monuments are neutrally drawn -— and it will be close.

If a religion case this be, the Court is likely to find that the town is privileging mainstream (or at least Old Testament) religions over minority ones like the Summum, and order the town to accept the new monument or remove the Ten Commandments.

The case may seem trivial, but it's not easy: On one hand the government should not discriminate between religions. But on the other, do we really want courts determining what constitutes a religion worthy of such non-discriminatory treatment? Ultimately, the Court should step away from its muddled establishment clause jurisprudence and allow local governments to put in their public spaces whatever speech reflects community values -- within reason.

Cato Supreme Court Review: 2007-2008 (Books)

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:00:00 EDT

Now in its seventh year, this acclaimed annual publication, which comes out every September, brings together leading national scholars to analyze the Supreme Court’s most important decisions from the term just ended and preview the year ahead. The Cato Supreme Court Review is unlike any other public...

Constitution Day Preview 2008 (Daily Podcast)

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:00:00 EDT

Color the Nation's Political Map Purple (Commentary)

Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:00:00 EDT

The 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were two of the closest in U.S. history, and produced nearly identical electoral maps - only Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico switched parties. This result set begat the rigid pundit orthodoxy that America has become a "50-50 nation" - about half "blue" (D...

Olympics Are for Sport, Not Politics (Commentary)

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT

World leaders are wringing their hands over this summer's Games in Beijing, but politicians' discomfort that the Games somehow legitimize human rights abuses reflects romanticized history. Since the end of the Cold War, the Olympics have thrown off the corrosive chains of ideological battle to rever...

A Full Docket for SCOTUS (Daily Podcast)

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT

SCOTUS Wrapup 2008 (Daily Podcast)

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT

Let Millionaires Spend (Commentary)

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT

The Democratic candidate for a House seat in New York's 26th congressional district in 2004 and 2006, Jack Davis, finally got what he was asking for when the Supreme Court struck down the Millionaire's Amendment yesterday by a 5-4 ruling in Davis v. Federal Election Commission. The amendment woul...

Exxon, Punitive Damages and Decisive Indecision (Daily Podcast)

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT

Chamber of Commerce v. Brown Ruling (Daily Podcast)

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT

Cato Scholar Comments on Chamber of Commerce v. Brown Decision (Scholar Comments)

Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT

Today, by a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court overturned a California statute that prohibited employers from being able to speak out on issues relating to unions and labor policy. The restriction even applied to the payment of salaries, speaking about unions to employees working on state contracts, and meeting with employees on state property to discuss union-related issues. This statute, passed after intense lobbying by the AFL-CIO, applied to any employers who received over $10,000 in state program funds -- including everything from MediCal reimbursements to payments for building roads and schools. The only significant exceptions all relate to employer speech favoring union activity. The Cato Institute filed a brief supporting the petitioners in this case -- the Chamber of Commerce and a group of small business owners -- to argue that 1) the case should be decided on labor law grounds because the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) clearly prohibits state regulations of this kind; but 2) if the Supreme Court reached the First Amendment issue that the Ninth Circuit took it upon itself to decide (and decide erroneously), the statute should be struck down because it imposes an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of state funds and burdens private speech in an area unrelated to the programs for which the funds are given. In the end, the Supreme Court correctly decided the case on NLRA preemption grounds -- that California intruded on an area that is properly left to Congress's authority -- noting its own 1976 determination that Congress had left unionization activities to be "controlled by the free play of market forces." As Justice Stevens aptly stated, California's statute acted to regulate within "a zone protected and reserved for market freedom" and thus had to be struck down.

Baylor v. United States (Legal Briefs)

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT

The Hobbs Act is an anti-racketeering law Congress passed in 1946 to allow federal prosecution of extortion and robbery that impedes the flow of commerce across state lines. Today, the Act is used to prosecute local robberies having no more than a de minimis effect on interstate commerce. In this case, for example, the defendant robbed a Cleveland-area pizzeria of $538. The Sixth Circuit held that the Commerce Clause permitted this prosecution because the pizzeria obtained its flour, sauce, and cheese from various states outside Ohio. Cato's brief, joined by the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and the Goldwater Institute, argues that it is unconstitutional to federally prosecute robberies with such an attenuated effect on interstate commerce. Doing so destroys the line between the States' power to punish violent crime and Congress's power to regulate interstate markets. In addition, this sweeping application of the Hobbs Act is inconsistent with congressional intent and contrary to constitutional clear-statement rules designed to protect federalism and avoid unnecessary constitutional adjudication.

What's Sauce For the Private Goose... (Commentary)

Mon, 02 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT

Every so often, the Supreme Court asks the solicitor general, the government's voice before the Court, for his thoughts on whether it should review a lower court's ruling. Sometimes those rulings involve minor matters of statutory interpretation. But right now the justices are asking for the sol...