Ilya Confusion At The Scalia Memorial Dinner

Justice Barrett mentioned Ilya Somin, but meant Ilya Shapiro.

For about two decades, there has been persistent Ilya confusion. Ilya Somin of George Mason University is often confused with Ilya Shapiro, formerly of the Cato Institute, and now at the Manhattan Institute. They both share the name Ilya, they both are legal scholars, and both share (or at least shared) similar philosophical views.

Longtime readers of JoshBlackman.com will recall that I wrote a series of posts about "Ilya Confusion" starting in 2010. Indeed, that year, I held the "Battle of the Ilyas," a trivia contest to determine who would be the real Ilya. For those keeping score, Ilya Shapiro prevailed.

Even then-Justice Willett tweeted about the Battle of the Ilyas!

Why bother having #FedSoc2014 unless it showcases The Thrilla of the Ilyas!@ishapiro vs @IlyaSomin

The smart $ is on Ilya!#FedSoc2013

— Judge Don Willett (@JusticeWillett) November 16, 2013

Tonight, during the Scalia Memorial Dinner, there was another case of Ilya Confusion. Earlier in the program, Judge Amul Thapar praised Ilya Shapiro's presentation at NYU on October 7. There were efforts to cancel Ilya's talk, but the Chapter and many others rallied together to keep the event alive. Then, during Justice Barrett's discussion, she referenced Ilya Somin's talk at NYU. Woops. I was sitting at Somin's table, and we all started to chuckle.

Justice Barrett is just the latest person to fall for Ilya confusion. For whatever it is worth, I am often confused with Josh Hammer: a right-wing Jewish lawyer whose first name is Josh. But there was recently another first. I was at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, and a person on the public line asked me, "Are you Professor Will Baude?" I replied, "Close."

 

Update: This tweet sums things up.

It's happening! https://t.co/ve5GBydWyP pic.twitter.com/uzCBVdMMIq

— Adam Schulman (@aeschulman) November 7, 2025

Comments

[Kazinski]

"They both share the name Ilya, they both are legal scholars, and both share (or at least shared) similar philosophical views."

That might have been true 5 years ago, but Trump broke our Ilya.

Can we exchange him for the one that's not broken?

[AmosArch]

Mr. Somin is basically like the guys at the 'Lincoln Project'. Both Dem attack dogs that spend the bulk or all their time doing whatever the Dems command but they have cute little nametags with the words 'Republican' or 'Libertarian' that swing and tinkle from their collars as they attempt to savage the next right or GOP target.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, Prof. Somin serves at the beck and call of the Democrats.

We should study the urge of some to equate all those they disagree with into one big group of identical villains.
Something something reducing cognitive load.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Somin could easily support republicans again depending on how they change post-Trump. Like I could see him being okay with a Ramaswamy-type. He’s been moderating a bit in his Ohio gubernatorial bid and was supposedly not impressed by Elon’s plan to make government more efficient through ketamine-fueled idiocy. Or a Massie-type.

But given the party’s staffing and top level leadership now…it’s probably unlikely that those type of guys take over any time soon.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump broke our Ilya.

Prof. Somin has changed none of his positions from before to after Trump.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

That's funny! He never changes his mind, then, when conditions change?

[David Nieporent]

Principles should not change based on "conditions," no.

[LawTalkingGuy]

He did actually: he decided that occasionally, democratic candidates are less likely to cause harm to the things he cares about than Trump-inspired republican ones.

Pre-Trump he would have thought that while republicans weren’t great on things like immigration or criminal law, some social issues, or military adventurism they were better on private property, guns, regulation, federalism, etc. and democrats weren’t exactly great (from his perspective) on immigration or military adventurism either. Plus republican judges were generally good on his views back then.

Post-Trump, especially Trump 2, he thinks that republicans are really really bad on immigration, social issues, federalism, and even if they still want to “deregulate” in a sense they are also interfering more in private business and asserting state power in new ways. And he thinks new Trump judges aren’t like the Bush/Reagan ones.

[Stephen Lathrop]

WTF is a Supreme Court justice doing at a partisan-sponsored event? I get that it has been going on for years. It has always been wrong. Judicial ethics for the Supreme Court, if any are ever enacted, ought to prohibit a justice from lending prestige of office to political partisans of any stripe.

[Bwaaah]

It's the Federalist Society. Despite the cartoonish perspective of the left, the FedSoc is a non-partisan association that has a strong "conservative" take on law. If it makes you feel better (I know it won't), there's a substantial anti-Trump constituency there. In truth, it's an anti-government-overreach contingent, but I thought I'd try to contextualize it in a currently popular binary worldview.

Spare me the comments about how laughable my opinion is.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bwaaah — Not laughable at all. Faithful . . . to every Federalist Society press release ever. And you do a good job. Here you are, capturing exactly the approved nuance:

Despite the cartoonish perspective of the left, the FedSoc is a non-partisan association that has a strong "conservative" take on law.

Nothing partisan there!

But what do have to say about what I remarked? You know, the notion that justices should not be attending advocacy and indoctrination sessions sponsored by the Federalist Society on the one hand, or the Brookings Institution on the other.

[David Nieporent]

What "advocacy and indoctrination sessions"?

If someone is so malleable that merely being exposed to views outside the courtroom will affect his/her ability to impartially judge cases, then s/he shouldn't be on the bench; the solution isn't to require him/her to live like a hermit.

[Bwaaah]

I am not "faithful" to the Federalist Society in any way. I have no affiliation with it, nor any regular attention to it. From time to time, I've seen FedSoc-sponsored presentations. They've reflected what looked to me, as a non-expert onlooker, like seriously considered legal thinking that I don't ever recall having veered far from what is considered relatively mainstream thought.

It is unfortunate that the term "conservative" strikes you as "partisan." Are you sure you're not mistaking "conservative" for meaning "Republican" (which is indeed partisan)? Many people who consider themselves to be conservatives would argue that your belief there is quite wrong. For example, many conservatives are deeply troubled by what has become of the Republican party over the past decade, and see it (and DJT) as having DRAMATICALLY DEPARTED from conservative conventions.

Among other things, conservatism reflects strong regard for established conventions, especially FedSoc-type conservatives in their legal analysis, and is in some measure meant to serve as a bulwark against exactly the kinds of threats that, for example, ever-expanding Executive authority brings to freedom and the hope for widespread individual advancement.

I think you have a classification error here.

[David Nieporent]

It isn't a "partisan-sponsored event."

[Vryedni]

I was at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, and a person on the public line asked me, "Are you Professor Will Baude?" I replied, "Close."

You wish.

[Nick Gillespie's Jacket]

That was funny

[Eric Rasmusen]

There's some interesting math modelling to do here. Suppose the "dominant" Ilya gets credit for all the Ilya articles, by either person. Suppose, too that you become dominant by writing more articles. It follows that
1. The dominant Ilya benefits from the existence of the "beta" Ilya.
2. The beta Ilya will get discouraged, and write fewer or no articles, OR
2b. The beta Ilya will strive to exceed the dominant Ilya, increasing the output of both.
This is what economists call a "patent race". My dissertation was on it, and the work of Philippe Aghion, who just won the Nobel Prize, is on it, mostly applied to entire industries where one industry replaces another.

[CommentMonkey]

Should the dominant Ilya sandbag - take care not to exceed the output of the beta Ilya by too much? If the beta Ilya believes he is close to surpassing the dominant Ilya, he will keep trying. If he think's its hopeless, he'll stop.

So the dominant Ilya's best play is to appear vulnerable and keep the score close. But if they both become too prominent, the Ilya-consuming public may develop the ability to tell them apart, and the model ceases to function.

[JonFrum]

Let's see how I do - Ilya Somin is the open borders pimp who wants to destroy our civilization one baby step at a time. How'd I do?

[David Nieporent]

Poorly, unless you're auditioning for a gig with Breitbart.

[JonFrum]

You're famaliar with Britain? Every day a new rape or stabbing or murder - all by immigrants imported by an open border policy. Some of us don't want that in America. Somin does.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Did Nigel Farage tell you that?

[David Nieporent]

1) No immigrants are "imported."
2) The UK obviously has no "open border policy."
3) Whatever is happening in the UK, in the US we know that immigrants — including illegal ones — though of course that concept wouldn't exist if there were actually open borders — commit crimes at lower rates than the native born.
4) Just burn a cross on someone's lawn and get it over with. You know you want to.

[David Nieporent]

I am almost never wrong — maybe once a year — but I must admit that leftists were right, and I was wrong, about opposition to immigration. I used to buy — and argue — the whole "they're just concerned about illegal immigration" or even "they're worried about jobs." But leftists were right that the anti-immigration crowd is motivated 95%+ by pure unadulterated racism. Those darkies are gonna rape the white women. That's really what you losers think.

[Bwaaah]

"They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

It still makes me cringe.

[Jeff Walden]

I hate to admit it, but that was me who confused you! I had applied rather perfunctorily to the lottery, was unsurprised when I didn't get in on the initial draw...then was gobsmacked to get an email a week later saying I'd been selected.

Here's a picture of me outside SCOTUS a few minutes after the argument -- when you saw me I was in a long-sleeved black shirt with gray stripes on the shoulders -- properly covering up Scott Lincicome's TNOIIECBAFTATPPAAFPDATW t-shirt because I've been to ~20 oral arguments over the last 15 years and would like to be able to go to more of them! https://x.com/jswalden/status/1986133659590529112

In my not-terribly-strong defense, I think Will Baude was on my mind because he (Divided Argument, more precisely) was the last communication I'd sent about the oral argument. Their last episode had mentioned some uncertainty about public attendance of arguments during the shutdown, so I'd sent an email with the communications I'd gotten from them about the effect:

"You are receiving this email because you have received seats for an oral argument at the Supreme Court during the November 2025 session. If the current lapse in appropriations continues through that session, arguments will proceed as normal, with seating still provided to you and other members of the public."

Also, while winning the lottery in principle should have given me a healthy night's sleep the night before, in reality that night coincided with developing a sore throat and ultimately sleeping so poorly that I think I read multiple amicus briefs during overnight gaps where I had come awake and couldn't fall back to sleep. So my mind was not exactly working at peak performance!

[Jack Jordan]

Ilya Shapiro is the one who publicly advocated violating the First Amendment with "prospective" retaliation against students who dared to associate with people (attending universities with other students or faculty) who dared to express viewpoints in political expression that Ilya Shapiro didn't like:

"like Judge Jim Ho and a dozen other federal judges, not hiring from law schools that have bad cultures (a prospective application, not punishing students who are there currently).

These judges currently have a clerkship hiring boycott of Yale, Stanford, and Columbia, which seems to be having some effect, at least at Yale."

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/lawless-the-miseducation-of-americas-elites-ilya-shapiro-podcast-interview

"I support that because, first of all, it’s prospective, that is when he announced the boycott, the students that were already at Yale, they weren’t affected by it."

https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-cancel-culture-legal-education-and-supreme-court-ilya

It's absurd and obscene to pretend that retaliation by federal judges in knowing violation of our Constitution (the freedom of expression and freedom of association expressly secured by the First Amendment) is somehow ok because it's merely "prospective."

It is a federal offense for any federal judge to act “under” mere “color of any” legal authority or purported “custom” (including any judicial custom) to “willfully” deprive "any person" of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution” or federal “laws” (18 U.S.C. § 242) or to “conspire” with anyone to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person” in "the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to” him “by the Constitution” or federal “laws” or because such person “exercised” such “right or privilege” (18 U.S.C. § 241).

[Davy C]

Your reading of 241 would extend to most boycotts, to the extent that such a reading would seriously impact free association and free speech.

I also don't think that clerkships count as "rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution" under 242. Someone willfully deprives you of your right to an attorney, this applies. You don't get the clerkship you wanted because the judge doesn't like your choice of education, the Constitution never gave you the privilege of clerking in the first place. (That's not even getting into the fact that *of course* judges look at what school you went to when deciding whether they want you as a clerk; they *always* have.)

[Jack Jordan]

Davy, the rights and privileges at issue (secured by the First Amendment) are the freedom of association and freedom of expression. Judges are retaliating and discriminating against students because they are associating with certain other students or faculty (by attending a university), and those other students or faculty expressed one or more viewpoints that those (so-called conservative) judges just don't like.

The judges are depriving people of the liberty to be clerks for particular courts, and they're doing so without due process of law. Clearly, the judges are violating the First and Fifth Amendments.

The judges also are abusing their positions by imposing extra-judicial punishments for merely personal purposes (purposes that do not serve any legitimate public interest).

[zali786]

The situation described in “Ilya Confusion At The Scalia Memorial Dinner” is both intriguing and surprising, showing how quickly narratives can shift in public events. It’s a reminder that clarity, communication, and verified information matter more than ever. Discussions like these highlight why platforms such as TrackingBrit
are becoming essential—helping people stay informed, organized, and aware of what’s happening around them. Overall, this incident sparks important conversations about perception, context, and how easily confusion can spread. https://trackingbrit.co.uk/

[Stupid Government Tricks]

First communist I've ever heard of who fought government confiscation of private property.

[David Nieporent]

You seem a bit unclear about what the word "communist" means.

[Nick Gillespie's Jacket]

The wannabe Wyatt Earp makes an appearance!

[Kazinski]

No enemies to the right, but the catch is nobody is far enough right to qualify.

[Charles Nichols - CRTC]

David Nieporent, you are a cocksucker. Is that clear enough?

[Riva]

Maybe they should invite Mamdani to post some essays here so people can be educated?

[David Nieporent]

You seem unclear about what that word means, too.

[neurodoc]

If Nieporent retorts, "It takes one to know one," will you have an equally riposte then? (BTW, is there any rationale for your nastiness toward Shapiro, Somin, and Nieporent? Perhaps a commonality they share?)

[Charles Nichols - CRTC]

David Nieporent, I know that yesterday you were a cocksucker, today you are a cocksucker, and tomorrow you will be a cocksucker.

[Charles Nichols - CRTC]

neurodoc, isn't the fact that they are rat bastard, communist cocksuckers reason enough?

[TwelveInchPianist]

They're communist cocksukers, and you're not a communist? It's OK, I'm sure there are other cocksukers out there.

[Charles Nichols - CRTC]

Has anyone else noticed that Nick Gillespie's Jacket, and all of my other critics here are homosexuals? Why is that? Are all Libertarians fags and rug munchers?