UBC philosophy professor’s research cited in U.S. Supreme Court decision

Here’s what you can do with that Arts degree, kids

On March 26, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decided once and for all that the federal bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms can regulate gun-building kits, just as it regulates guns.

Gun manufacturers and private citizens argued that these kits should be exempt, because they aren’t firearms. The court disagreed—and relied on a UBC professor’s 22-year-old research paper to make its point.

Dr. Ori Simchen studies the philosophy of language and co-wrote a paper called “Law” which argued that the meaning of many everyday nouns—like “hammer” or “chair”—is shaped by intended function rather than technical definitions or expert consensus. You can call a cardboard box full of particle board and screws a “table,” as long as you’re walking out of IKEA with it.

SCOTUS reasoned that a gun part or a kit doesn’t need to meet a technical or traditional definition of “firearm” to count as one under the law. If its intended purpose is to become a functional gun, then it should be treated as a firearm for regulatory purposes.

It’s rare for a SCOTUS decision to cite a philosophy paper. Legal research? Sure. Psychology or economics? Sometimes. History, philosophy and literature? Not so much.

Dr. Simchen is, well, philosophical about his unexpected brush with fame.

“We find ourselves in this funny time where we have to justify working in the humanities. Everyone has gone so practical about so many things,” he said. “But sometimes you can work on something that’s very abstract, and one day some judge will find it and use it in a majority opinion that is going to have an effect on American society.

“It illustrates why it’s important to have universities teaching subjects like philosophy or linguistics—anything that doesn’t have a very obvious application in the short term. It took 22 years for this to have a wider impact.”