The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
My Cato Policy Report Article on "Three Constitutional Issues Libertarians Should Make their Own"
The article explains why libertarians should focus much more on constitutional issues arising from zoning, immigration restrictions and racial profiling.
I recently became the B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, a position I hold in addition to my primary job as a law professor at George Mason University. As one of my first acts in this new role, I have published an article in the Cato Policy Report outlining three constitutional issues that libertarians should focus on more, and make our own. Here is an excerpt:
Libertarian legal scholars, activists, and public interest lawyers have made valuable contributions on a range of important constitutional issues, including property rights, school choice, Second Amendment rights, free speech, religious liberties, and more. But we have largely ignored three significant constitutional issues, thereby passing up valuable opportunities to expand liberty: zoning, constitutional constraints on immigration restrictions, and racial profiling in law enforcement….
Exclusionary zoning is probably the greatest American property rights issue of our time. In many parts of the country, restrictions on the construction of new housing severely constrain property rights and cut off millions of people from housing and job opportunities….
Libertarians have not neglected zoning. Libertarian‐leaning scholars…. have authored pioneering works on this issue. But libertarian legal scholars and litigators have mostly overlooked the constitutional dimensions of the issue, despite their successful focus on a wide range of other constitutional property rights questions….
Like exclusionary zoning, immigration restrictions massively restrict liberty and degrade human welfare. By barring entry to hundreds of thousands of people who seek freedom and opportunity in the United States, the federal government massively restricts the liberty of would‐be immigrants and American citizens alike…..
Libertarian economists and political philosophers have played a leading role in highlighting the harm and injustice caused by immigration restrictions…. But…. most libertarian lawyers and legal scholars (myself included, for much of my career)—have largely ignored the constitutional dimensions of the problem….
It's far from clear that the original meaning of the Constitution even gives the federal government a general power to restrict immigration in the first place….
Whatever the merits of its reasoning, the Supreme Court is unlikely to overturn the Chinese Exclusion Case [ruling that the federal government has power over immigration] anytime soon. But libertarians would do well to take aim at extensions of that ruling that have largely immunized immigration restrictions from constitutional constraints that apply to virtually every type of government policy. For example, courts often uphold immigration restrictions that discriminate on the basis of speech, religion, race, ethnicity, and other characteristics that are presumptively forbidden in other areas of law. Immigration detention and deportation proceed with far weaker due process protections than other severe deprivations of liberty….
[R]acial profiling is a widespread problem. A 2019 Pew Research Center poll found that 59 percent of black men and 31 percent of black women say they have been unfairly stopped by police because of their race. Their perceptions are backed by numerous studies—including many that control for other variables—showing that police often treat blacks and (to a lesser degree) Hispanics more harshly than similarly situated whites….
Curbing racial profiling should be a priority for all who believe government should be colorblind. If we libertarians truly believe that it is wrong for government to discriminate on the basis of race, we cannot ignore that principle when it comes to those officials who carry guns and have the power to kill, injure, and arrest people….
In addition to being unjust, racial profiling is also unconstitutional. The original meaning of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was centrally focused on unequal enforcement of laws by state and local governments, including the police…..
Libertarians have achieved much on a variety of constitutional issues. But we have largely neglected three that cry out for our attention. It is, perhaps, no accident that two of them (immigration and racial profiling) tend to pit us against the political right. The third—zoning—cuts across ideological lines. The "fusionist" alliance between libertarians and conservatives has deteriorated in recent years, but remains stronger in the constitutional law field than elsewhere.
Libertarians should embrace useful collaboration with conservatives; however, we must also protect liberty across the board, regardless of whether the danger emanates from the left or the right.
In the article, I outline the significance of these issues more fully, and also describe how libertarians can help address their constitutional dimensions.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
""Three Constitutional Issues Should Make their Own""
WHO should make these issues their own? Or alternatively, the constitutional issues should make their own WHAT?
I think your title needs some grammar checking.
"Three constitutional issues [who?] should make their own."
Ilya a progressive in libertarian clothing.
You shouldn't complain. He is burnishing "libertarian" credentials with a demonstration of independent thinking.
Normally, "libertarian" is just a synonym for "Republican ashamed to admit it."
I've found it's easier for Republicans to shift to libertarian by thinking marijuana should be legal, or gay rights, than it is for liberals to shift to libertarian by giving up on control over business.
You can't be corrupt if you can't get in the way, I guess. No, not you, dear heart true believer. The bastards who get law degrees to go into "micromanagement" of business.
Do you prefer sheepish, disingenuous right-wingers parading around in garish, unconvincing libertarian drag?
You're at the Volokh Conspiracy, so I have a hunch . . .
"Ilya a progressive in libertarian clothing."
No real difference. Libertarians like low taxes and guns, otherwise they support "progressive" policies almost exclusively.
You actually think libertarians support, say, the green new deal as adapted by Biden? You think they support “equity” as a desired outcome? You think they suppress the rewriting of classic books to make them fit the hypersensitive way some are today?
Most libertarians understand that we need to have some control of our borders.
No way. You’re exhibiting another example of simple political brain mush - anyone who disagrees on anything is simply an enemy.
Nothing funnier than far right wing loons trying to gatekeep libertarianism.
Except left wing loons.....
Anyone around here, or you just mean it’s a funny thing happening elsewhere?
Here, there and everywhere.
Where here are liberals gatekeeping libertarianism?
Well, to an extent Kirkland, but to be fair, he's more of a troll than a liberal.
Haven't read a post of his in quite some time, but if Mr. Bumble thinks there's nothing funnier, well, that's a thing.
It's far from clear that the original meaning of the Constitution even gives the federal government a general power to restrict immigration in the first place….
I wouldn't mind seeing this explained a bit more. Personally I am in favor of more "liberal" immigration policy. The histrionics of the general Republican talking points equate that with "open borders" and only want the "right people" to be allowed to come here.
Immigration is clearly a general national welfare concern and the federal government is clearly responsible for that. What if some immigrants are clearly enemy combatants? That would be a national security concern. I don't see how you can argue otherwise regardless of where you land on the spectrum.
"Republican talking points ... only want the 'right people' to be allowed to come here."
Why would you want to admit criminals and bums if you could exclude them? Any non-exclusive policy admits anyone, including other countries' criminals. Does importing criminals serve the people of your community?
He likely was referring to Republicans' preferences for white immigrants, Christian immigrants, heterosexual immigrants, etc.
Obviously not the case since 1965.
You mean those who will easily assimilate to society? Quelle horreur!!
https://nypost.com/2022/08/09/texas-dad-found-guilty-of-fatally-shooting-teen-daughters-in-honor-killings/
well, yeah
He's basing that on a very strict version of enumerated powers doctrine, which he conspicuously doesn't apply to any other topic.
Well, it is Ilya.
It's not even good strict enumerated powers doctrine, sadly; Not only is the migration and importation clause more of a textual basis for enumeration than half the federal powers he doesn't dispute can lay claim to, (Why temporarily prohibit use of a power Congress didn't have?) but he totally blows off the point that, if the federal government didn't have the authority to control immigration, the states would, thanks to the 10th amendment.
There is, after all, even less in the Constitution to suggest states can't secure their own borders.
Orbital Mechanic,
What do you think the rate of annual immigration should be? Understanding you disagree with open borders and therefore favor limiting immigration. Also, what are the considerations or objectives that should inform this decision of setting the rate of immigration?
Complicated question to which there is no perfect answer.
Admitting hostiles and criminals clearly is clearly not good policy. Ask Canada. GWB would not be allowed to enter because of his DUI record.
Admitting political and other refugees should be done because those are good social values that improve our standing in the world. And they very often contribute once they are here.
As for general population that just want to be here for the opportunity or the culture there needs to be some limits which would be based on economic study. I believe the state department already does this and they always have a big backlog of applications. Also there is a regional quota system which is always controversial.
TL;DR I don't know.
“there needs to be some limits which would be based on economic study.”
But what are the economic objectives? To increase national GDP? – That can’t be it, that would be open borders. To economically benefit foreigners? To economically benefit Americans?
If the policy should be set according to what is most beneficial to American citizens, then you have to ask: which citizens? In other words, how is that benefit distributed?
Just as a hypothetical example, let’s say a policy benefits the wealthiest 1% by 1 trillion dollars, and harms the bottom 60% by 0.9 trillion dollars. Let’s say it’s a wash for the others. In this scenario, you can be sure that the great benefits of the policy would be widely lauded and studiously noted by intellectuals pointing out that ackshully, it’s a net benefit of 0.1 trillion dolllars. But has the correct objective been met here, in your opinion?
"Admitting hostiles and criminals clearly is clearly not good policy."
Welcome to the ranks of us who believe there are "right people".
“Ask Canada. GWB would not be allowed to enter because of his DUI record.”
No, Canada doesn’t exclude people for a DUI arrest 40+ years ago.
“…improve our standing in the world.”
You guys really seek kudos from foreign nationals for some unexplained reason.
To address your question, the Constitution doesn't appear to grant the federal government any power over immigration. The general welfare clause is not a grant of power, but is a qualification. It "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments." Jacobson v. Massachusetts.
Instead, to justify the federal government's assumption of authority over immigration, people usually try to appeal (somewhat questionably, in my view) to some supposed general principles of "national sovereignty" or perhaps the commerce clause.
Of course, Congress has power over naturalization, but that's not the same thing as immigration. If Congress didn't have power over immigration, then the States would apparently have power over immigration, including even the ability to limit immigration from other States it seems.
Your interpretation means that if some bad state actor decides to attack the United States by flooding it with "immigrants" to sow chaos and harm, the federal government has no standing or authority to do anything about it.
I have a hard time accepting that was anyone's intent, ever.
Well, if they are bad actors with mal intent flooding the country, then it is a national security issue and Congress interestingly has not only the power, but the obligation, to provide for the common defense under the Constitution. Oddly enough this would seem to apply to at least some of what goes on at our border today, and the US govt is abdicating that duty. They are more concerned about borders on the other side of the world than our own.
But also, as far as "anyone's intent" goes, I think they would have assumed that States would do whatever is necessary just as well or better than the general government. The fact that something really bad may exist and needs to be addressed by force through government, doesn't prove that it needs to be the federal government's responsibility rather than state and local government's responsibility, much less that the federal government was lawfully delegated such responsibility in the Constitution.
I always thought that it came from The Law of Nations which deals with immigration and as such shows that it is an inherent property of a sovereign nation. As the constitution gives the feds the power to define and punish “offenses against the Laws of Nations”, the federal government therefore has the power over immigration.
That's another one. I don't know much about that one.
Another very common argument is the migration and importation clause Brett mentions above. This one doesn't seem compelling to me because a prohibition on doing something (such as infringing the right to keep and bear arms) should not be read as implying that the power to do so would exist in the absence of the prohibition.
The key point about it is that it wasn't a prohibition. It was a temporary prohibition.
Why would they have temporarily enjoined the exercise of a power they didn't think they'd delegated? Permanently, sure, that's just belts and suspenders. But temporarily?
Doing it temporarily only makes sense if they'd delegated it in the first place, or thought that it was an inherent power of government that didn't need to be delegated in the first place.
Maybe they didn’t want to express an opinion one way or another whether there was such a power.
And of course, the intent of this clause was about slaves, which implicate the commerce power. Somin has argued that the language used “was a euphemism intended to bolster the pretense that the Constitution did not endorse slavery” quoting John Jay and James Madison for support of that.
Beyond that, there were also indentured servants and such, some forms of migration that could implicate the commerce power.
But setting all of that aside – even if a prohibition, especially a temporary one, seems to imply that there would have been such a power, even if it “makes sense” that there would be one, the prohibition itself is still not a grant of power.
No, I'm just saying that a temporary prohibition is, all things being equal, evidence that they were understood to have the power they were temporarily prohibited from exercising.
Can you rationalize a contrary answer? Sure, with enough work you can rationalize almost anything. But that's the most straightforward reading: People do not, absent extraordinary reasons, temporarily enjoin the exercise of powers that aren't thought to be had in the first place.
It's a very strict version of enumerated powers doctrine he's using here, enormously more strict than he applies in any other context. Half the federal government's current activities have less basis than this!
Can't disagree with most of that, but the last sentence - only half?? I'd say higher than that!
Zoning is mostly a local issue. Open borders is a policy to benefit aliens at Americans' expense.
And "racial profiling" isn't a constitutional issue. If law enforcement against one race is bad, then enforcing those same laws against anyone of any race is equally bad. Law enforcement needs to protect and serve the public, not cater to the feelings of one specific race. Having law enforcement abuse everyone equally is not a win. Repeal the laws if you don't want them enforced.
I tell you what. Let’s stop handing out free cell phones, food, housing and an education before we let in the hundreds of millions who have said they would like to live in the USA. It’s an ivory tower unicorn farting pixie dust. Keep writing the papers. Just don’t act like it’s something tenable we should do in the name of freedom. It will strip away freedom as the government needs more and more tax revenue to pay for it. Maybe in the future people will get tired of funding a nanny state. It ain’t happnin’ any times soon.
You want to keep immigrants dumb and poor, and think that’s the way to keep things free and make our society successful?
Most of our benefits require citizenship already.
Even ignoring the humanist of immigrants as you do, your idea is a great recipe for an angry underclass.
Why should we import thousands of "dumb and poor" (your words, not anyone else’s) people into our communities in the first place?
And if you personally want someone to have so much free stuff then buy it for them yourself out of your own pocket.
You’re importing problems and dumping them on others and now you’re complaining when others don’t want to pay the expense you caused.
If Congress lacks the power to regulate immigration, then that power belongs to the states under the Tenth Amendment. Having seem what Eric Adams and Lori Lightfoot have said about immigration lately, I doubt that giving states power over the issue would produce results pleasing to Professor Somin.
I realize that, for those who embrace Sominism, the complaints of Adams, Lightfoot et al. are absolute folly. The immigrants shipped north by the fools in Texas enrich the recipient cities the instant they arrive.
Without reading beyond the headline,
1. Open borders
2. Open borders
3. Open borders
Also probably taking away self-government of local zoning powers.
…could be ML's middle name.
I almost always read before commenting, unless otherwise noted.
what is Cato's position on the classification problem?
Edited... Stupid page reload lost that this was a reply to a comment.