Courtesy of the Cato Institute.
Ilya Shapiro ‘99, the director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, has become an influential voice in shaping law and policy from an originalist perspective. When he’s not writing or editing, Shapiro often finds time for speaking engagements. He visited the University last December for a talk entitled “Election Controversies: Citizens United, Shelby County, and Voter ID Laws,” hosted by the newly created Princeton Federalist Society.
After attending the University in the nineties, Shapiro received a MSc from the London School of Economics and a J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School. The institute he currently heads “conduct[s] rigorous legal research…aimed at encouraging a climate of ideas conducive to liberty through constitutionally limited government.”
Shapiro also represents the Cato Institute all around the country, appearing on TV and taking meetings on Capitol Hill. He is the Editor-In-Chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review and his op-eds have appeared in publications like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.
However, much of the impact Shapiro has tried to make has come in the form of legal briefs called amicus curiae, which attempt to sway the high court in favor of a particular side on certain cases. Through these, Shapiro espouses a “clear, libertarian perspective.”
Shapiro explained that his career thus far has been profoundly impacted by his time at the University.
Although he knew he wanted to go to law school before he got to college, Shapiro cited the Woodrow Wilson School’s “interdisciplinary flexibility” as integral to his academic development.
“The focus on independent work and writing really helped me develop my communication skills and analytical thinking, which are the key parts of success as a lawyer,” Shapiro explained.
Shapiro also mentioned the vital influence of his senior thesis, written on constitutional development in Russia and Argentina, pointing to the words of late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as a great encapsulation of the process: “I don’t like writing, but I love having written.”
Shapiro was also a writer for the Tory during his time at the University.
Before joining the Cato Institute, Shapiro was a special adviser to the Multi-National Force in Iraq and practiced at Patton Boggs and Cleary Gottlieb.
Today, his schedule is very different from many lawyers in private practice. “There is no typical day at Cato,” explained Shapiro. “I am privileged to have a job that straddles the academic, the legal, and the political.”
Shapiro is a self-described originalist and believes strongly in the importance of not adapting ‘dead documents’ to modern times. “[Instead,] the lawyer’s job is to always apply existing law… to novel facts that come about,” Shapiro said, arguing against the ‘living document’ interpretation of the Constitution.
He noted that for an originalist, definitions play a large role in the process, as technology has advanced but the original intent remains unchanging.
“The words ‘interstate commerce’ can be understood as much in the time of airplanes as they could in the times of stagecoaches, and everything in-between; it’s not so much [a matter of] updating the Constitution, but it’s a matter of figuring out how such propositions mean given different facts,” Shapiro said.
When asked to comment on recent calls to change the Supreme Court confirmation process and the makeup of the nation’s highest court, Shapiro expressed concern, especially about political frustration being used as a call for radical structural change.
“I think it is really dangerous to want to fundamentally restructure our constitutional order, and proposals to pack the court have never worked traditionally well,” explained Shapiro. “I think voters will see these as naked partisan arguments, as they function as more of a power grab.”
Shapiro elaborated on this topic in an op-ed written shortly after the Tory interviewed him.
“[How could one] get to an expansion of any kind that won’t result in a reciprocal expansion the next time the opposing party takes power?” Shapiro asked.
However, he wasn’t fully opposed to some structural changes, explaining that nothing short of a Constitutional amendment will have any permanent effect. Shapiro also noted that term limits might make sense but also explained that their efficacy is not assured.
“Fundamentally, all of these term limit proposals are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, and the Titanic is not the process, it’s the product,” said Shapiro. “The reason why we have these toxic and politicized confirmations isn’t related to the Supreme Court process, but is rather a product of the growth of the federal government, and as Congress allocates its power to these administrative agencies which are then sued, it is ultimately the judiciary that resolves these conflicts.”
Shapiro argued that the solution lies in a different direction.
“The only way to detoxify the process would be to rebalance the separation of powers so that Congress can take back its legislative authority, and to take power currently in Washington down to states and localities,” Shapiro explained.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.