Matt Miller

Matt Miller

Matt Miller is the executive director of the Institute for Justice Texas Chapter, where he fights to secure property rights, economic liberty, freedom of speech and school choice.

After earning his law degree from the University of Chicago, Matt—a lifelong Texan—worked in Dallas as a land use attorney at a large national law firm. There, Matt represented Texans who were seeking to secure their property rights against cities, counties and state agencies. Matt grew up in Fort Worth and earned his undergraduate degree at the University of Texas at Austin. He also holds a Master of Arts degree from St. John's College in Santa Fe, N.M. While in New Mexico, he worked for the New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee and, later, with local communities and Native American tribes on development issues.

Matt represented Texas property owners in a range of property rights disputes, including eminent domain, annexation, zoning, special districts and citizen referendums. He has worked on cases before the Texas Supreme Court, and has represented Amici before the U.S. Supreme Court and the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Texas Chapter’s work has been featured in dozens of newspapers and web publications, in addition to numerous blogs. Matt has been quoted by CNN Money and by newspapers, television and radio stations, and blogs across Texas. He has testified by invitation before the Texas House Committee on Government Reform and the Texas House Agriculture and Livestock Committee. While in Dallas, Matt served as Vice President of the Dallas Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society. He has also been a guest lecturer at the University of Texas at Austin Department of Philosophy.

Matt lives in Austin with his wife and daughter.

Thin Black Line Essential for Limited Government

by Matt Miller

As the debt-ceiling debacle shows, Americans are genuinely frightened that our ever-expanding federal government will spend us into national collapse.  But while Americans are delivering a message of limited government to Congress and the President, proponents of small government have actually been sending a completely different message to the judiciary for decades.  That message—that any judge who strikes down a bad law is an “activist”—has been destructive to freedom and conducive to runaway growth in government.

Americans have always believed more in the power of individuals and the free market than in government power.  For example, ABC News and The Washington Times have been asking people the same question since 1984:  Do you favor smaller government and fewer services, or larger government and more services?  The results show a consistent national preference for smaller government.  In 1984, 49 percent of respondents favored smaller government while 40 percent favored larger government.  Today it is 56 percent versus 40 percent.

The American commitment to limited government is embodied in our Constitution.  The Founders were distrustful of government power and they wanted to limit government’s interference in our lives.  Largely ignored in today’s debate over limited government, however, is the role that our courts should play in keeping the government in check.

Our courts are a constitutionally co-equal branch of government.  The Founders spent considerable time debating the best way to ensure judicial independence so that the judiciary could temper overly ambitious presidents and legislatures.

A Constitution that says “no” to government requires judges who are willing to say “no” to government, too.   Yet when judges actually strike down a law as unconstitutional, they are frequently derided as “activists” by people who ordinarily think of themselves as advocates for smaller government.

(more…)

Local Government Run Amok, Example #17,568: Dallas Sign Ban

by Matt Miller

Showing complete disregard for the free speech rights of small business owners, the City of Dallas bans businesses from putting commercial signs in the upper two-thirds of any window or glass door, and on more than 15 percent of any window or glass door. Only ineffective signs are allowed by the government: tiny signs placed at people’s feet. The law also bans signs that cover more than 25 percent of a building’s façade. Failure to take down the signs means you are at risk to be hit with a fine up to $2,000.

(more…)