Clark Neily Journalist Profile

Articles

DOJ Jumps the Shark

Dec 24, 2024 | cato.org | Clark Neily

Generated with ElevenLabs AI technology. Imagine you were operating a shark-diving charter boat in Florida and came across a long fishing line that you believed to be the work of poachers. You haul in the line, release a number of fish, and take the rig back to the marina after notifying state officials.
Could Trump Openly Defy a Supreme Court Decision?

Oct 30, 2024 | cato.org | Clark Neily

It’s reasonable for him to suppose there would be no practical consequences if he tells Chief Justice John Roberts and company to pound sand. October 29, 2024 • Commentary This article appeared in The Dispatch on October 29, 2024. Like most libertarians, I typically see little difference between the major parties’ respective presidential candidates.
Chip Mellor: Friend, Mentor, Freedom Fighter

Oct 29, 2024 | cato.org | Clark Neily

My friend and former boss at the Institute for Justice, Chip Mellor, passed away earlier this month, and I’m still trying to process the loss. Chip was a towering figure in libertarian circles. Besides founding one of the nation’s premier public interest law firms together with now-Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick, Chip mentored a generation of libertarian constitutional lawyers and activists whom he inspired with his unflagging optimism, uncompromising standards, and clarity of vision.
Can Governing Norms Hold?

Oct 29, 2024 | aei.org | Kevin R. Kosar |William Haun |Lee Drutman |Clark Neily

Editor’s Note: Although partisans on both sides of the aisle have warned that the stakes of the upcoming presidential election could not be higher, the two campaigns themselves have been remarkably light on policy substance. With Election Day now a week away, we reached out to dozens of thinkers, writers, and analysts and asked them about their biggest concerns about a potential Trump or Harris administration.
A Glaring Error in Trump's Hush Money Trial

Jun 18, 2024 | cato.org | Clark Neily

It is axiomatic that judges should not mislead jurors about their actual duties and powers. For example, if a judge instructed a jury that only registered Republicans and Democrats could speak during deliberations, its verdict would be invalid because the Constitution requires that all jurors have the opportunity to participate.
A glaring error in Trump’s hush money trial

Jun 17, 2024 | washingtonexaminer.com | Clark Neily

A New York jury acquitted publisher John Peter Zenger of seditious libel in 1735 in what the National Constitution Center correctly calls “an early example of jury nullification.” Three centuries later, another New York jury was falsely instructed that it lacked that power, thereby rendering its guilty verdict against another high-profile defendant, former President Donald Trump, constitutionally infirm.
Qualified Immunity Is an Unqualified Disaster

May 29, 2024 | cato.org | Clark Neily

The police‐protecting doctrine is legally baseless, costly, and liberty‐eroding. May 28, 2024 • Commentary This article appeared on The Bulwark on May 28, 2024. District court judges occupy the bottom rung of the federal judicial hierarchy. They hold hearings, decide motions, and preside over trials. They do not make precedent; they apply it.
Judge: Qualified Immunity Is an Unqualified Disaster

May 28, 2024 | thebulwark.com | Clark Neily

DISTRICT COURT JUDGES occupy the bottom rung of the federal judicial hierarchy. They hold hearings, decide motions, and preside over trials. They do not make precedent; they apply it. It is therefore highly unusual for district court judges to publicly criticize appellate-court decisions they are bound to apply, much less rulings of the Supreme Court. But that’s precisely what happened last week when Mississippi Judge Carlton Reeves called for the eradication of qualified immunity.
Deja Vu All Over Again

Mar 11, 2024 | cato.org | Clark Neily

The Constitution has a variety of countermajoritarian structures and provisions, some of which the Supreme Court enforces vigorously, some of which it enforces sparingly, and some of which it has rendered functionally meaningless through judicial abdication. On March 4, the justices consigned to the latter category Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that “no person” may hold public office who, having sworn an oath to support the United States, engages in insurrection.
United States v. Zackey Rahimi

Oct 3, 2023 | cato.org | Clark Neily

Earlier this year, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down 922(g)(8) on the grounds that there was no remotely analogous historical law or custom, as required by the Supreme Court’s most recent gun‐related case, New York Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022).