Are Libertarians Too Influential in Federal Court Decisions?
Mar 15, 2021
auto_awesome
Sheldon Whitehouse believes that libertarian legal scholars have undue influence on judges and proposes changes to their engagement with the judiciary. Ilya Shapiro comments on the influence of libertarian legal scholars. They discuss the impact of Cato's MECUS program, mandated disclosures, and the tension between disclosure and free speech.
Senator Whitehouse believes libertarian legal scholars have too much influence in federal court decisions.
Cato Institute's amicus program aims to influence both specific cases and public opinion through accessible briefs.
Deep dives
Senator Whitehouse's Beliefs on the Federal Judiciary
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse believes that conservative, originalist, and libertarian judges and legal scholars hold too much power in the federal judiciary. He attributes this power to the influence of so-called dark money, and has proposed legislation to require more disclosure of funding sources, travel by judges, and connections between organizations like the Cato Institute and the federal judiciary.
Cato's Amicus Program and Its Impact
Cato Institute's amicus program operates independently, without regular instructions from donors or executives. They consider factors such as legal importance, libertarian perspective, and alignment with Cato's mission when deciding whether to file an amicus brief in support of a case. Their goal is to influence not only the specific case at hand, but also public opinion by making their briefs accessible to a wider audience. Ilya Shapiro, head of the amicus program, argues that Senator Whitehouse misunderstands the relationship between funding and advocacy, explaining that donors support organizations because they share common values, rather than dictating specific positions.
Do judges feel undue influence from libertarian legal scholars? Sheldon Whitehouse may believe that's the case, and he'd like to change the way groups like the Cato Institute are allowed to engage with the judiciary. Ilya Shapiro comments.