What is a "Federalist"?

When I solicit students to join the WVU chapter of the Federalist Society, one question comes up far more frequently than any other: some version of "What is a federalist"? Students have heard the Federalist Society mentioned in connection with judicial nominations and other news events, but they have not heard exactly its what members believe. There is good reason for this. The question may be obvious, but the answer is a bit less straightforward.

A "federalist," or more precisely a member of the Federalist Society, believes that the job of judges is to determine what the law is from objective sources (constitutions, statutes, cases, history, etc.) while minimizing the impact of his or her own subjective views and policy preferences. The core justification for this belief is that while a judge's independence and expertise may give his interpretation of, say, a statute more legitimacy and weight than an ordinary citizen's, that same judge's subjective political, philosophical, or moral views about whether a statute is wise policy are carry no more authority than Joe Blow's on the street. To paraphrase Learned Hand, judges are entitled to interpret the law; they are not entitled to rule as philosopher kings.

There are some instances in which it is easy to see whether a judge is relying on objective sources or internal views. For instance, if a federal judge were to rule that the minimum age for assuming the presidency is 30 years of age, it would be obvious that the judge was relying upon his own views of what that minimum should be, rather than the proper objective source (ie. the U.S. Constitution, which specifies 35 years). However, in most of the cases which are truly controversial in modern American law, the distinction between interpreting objective sources and relying upon personal views is far harder to draw. Indeed, Federalist Society members frequently disagree among themselves whether a court in any particular decision stepped over the line, and the Federalist Society as an organization does not take positions on how any particular court cases should be resolved.

That diversity of opinion exists, and is in fact essential to the Society's continuing vitality. However, there is also a fairly uniform belief among members- a sort of glue that holds the Society together- that judges in the modern era have too often lost sight of the need to distinguish between objective law and personal views, and have let the latter influence their rulings to an unacceptable degree. It was in opposition to this trend that the Society was formed, and countering that trend is still its focus. As our motto states, "restoring the legal culture" is the Federalist Society's mission.

How does the WVU chapter implement that mission? By placing our faith in the marketplace of ideas. The members of our organization believe that through open debate, and only through open debate, can the legal culture be reformed. This blog and the events we hold on campus are attempts to serve that goal. If you share these values, we ask you to consider joining with us in our task.

Update: Should have mentioned that, despite the similarities in nomenclature, there is no necessary connection between being a member of the Federalist Society and holding any particular view on federalism in the state-federal power division sense of that word.