Clark Neily

Vice President for Criminal Justice

Cato Institute

Clark Neily

Vice President for Criminal Justice

Cato Institute

Clark Neily is vice president for criminal justice at the Cato Institute. His areas of interest include constitutional law, overcriminalization, civil forfeiture, police accountability, and gun rights. Neily is the author of Terms of Engagement: How Our Courts Should Enforce the Constitution’s Promise of Limited Government. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street JournalForbes, and National Review Online, as well as various law reviews, including the Harvard Journal of Law and Public PolicyGeorge Mason Law ReviewGeorgetown Journal of Law and Public PolicyNYU Journal of Law and Liberty, and Texas Review of Law and Politics. Neily is a frequent guest speaker and lecturer for the Federalist Society, Institute for Humane Studies, and American Constitution Society.

Before joining Cato in 2017, Neily was a senior attorney and constitutional litigator at the Institute for Justice and director of the Institute’s Center for Judicial Engagement. He is also an adjunct professor at the University of Texas School of Law, where he teaches constitutional litigation and public-interest law.

Neily served as co-counsel in District of Columbia v. Heller, the historic case in which the Supreme Court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for self-defense.

Neily began his legal career as a law clerk to Judge Royce Lamberth on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. After that he spent four years in the trial department of the Dallas-based firm Thompson & Knight. Neily received his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Texas, where he was Chief Articles Editor of the Texas Law Review.

Contributions

Deep Dive Episode 150 – Regulating Business in the Age of COVID-19

December 10, 2020

In this live podcast, Brian Kabateck, Luke Wake, and Clark Neily address vital questions raised by COVID-19, including whether this is the right time for states to liberalize economic regulations more generally.

Listen to this podcast

2018 JLEP Symposium: Regulating the Modern Workforce

March 7, 2018

Government regulation is intended to improve the efficiency of markets and protect people from harms they cannot identify or prevent on their own. But, for decades, advocates have debated whether the regulatory process and rules developed through it are too strict or too lax; whether they properly account for all the things society values; and even whether they make society better or worse off on balance. The Journal of Law, Economics & Policy’s Symposium on Regulatory Reform, Transparency, and the Economy explored these and related questions as leading scholars and practitioners examined a number of recent regulatory proposals impacting a broad swath of the American economy – from banking and finance to energy and the environment, and from employment law to the internet economy. Speakers considered and debated how well these proposals would perform their intended functions and how they might be improved.

The symposium featured discussions of research papers prepared by experts working on the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project. The proceedings of the Conference were published in a special symposium issue of George Mason’s Journal of Law, Economics & Policy.

Watch this video