In a 7-2 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) funding mechanism is constitutional.

The CFPB operates with a funding method outside direct Congressional control. The NCLA, along with The Buckeye Institute and the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, filed an amicus curiae brief urging the Court to overturn the CFPB’s funding method as a violation of the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause.

NCLA's Mark and Vec have a lively discussion about this decision in this latest episode! 

In a 7-2 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) funding mechanism is constitutional.
The CFPB operates with a funding method outside direct Congressional control. The NCLA, along with The Buckeye Institute and the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, filed an amicus curiae brief urging the Court to overturn the CFPB’s funding method as a violation of the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause.
NCLA's Mark and Vec have a lively discussion about this decision in this latest episode!

Administrative Static is an irreverent legal affairs podcast that exposes the unlawful side of administrative power. Hosts Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione will decry federal and state agency abuses, trot out legal arguments, grill expert guests, and bandy about the latest cases and controversies. 

Administrative Static is an irreverent legal affairs podcast that exposes the unlawful side of administrative power. Hosts Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione will decry federal and state agency abuses, trot out legal arguments, grill expert guests, and bandy about the latest cases and controversies.&nbsp;

Administrative Static Podcast

Administrative Static

SCOTUS rules in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America

We awarded Drs. Azadeh Khatibi, Tracy Høeg, Ram Duriseti, Aaron Kheriaty, and Pete Mazolewski NCLA’s Award for Client Bravery. NCLA represented these courageous doctors in the successful Høeg v. Newsom suit challenging a California state law that would have subjected them to discipline for sharing information with patients that departed from the “contemporary scientific consensus” on Covid-19. Gov. Newsom signed a bill to repeal the law, marking a major victory for our clients, free speech, and medical liberty.

NCLA also presented a “Georgie” award (a bust of George Washington) to Latham & Watkins partner Roman Martinez for outstanding service to NCLA and our clients. He delivered oral argument to the Supreme Court in January in our Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce case against the unconstitutional Chevron doctrine.

The Buckeye Institute Director of Litigation David Tryon and Legal Fellow Alex Certo took home the Georgie for Best Amicus Brief, while A. Gregory Grimsal received the Best Local Counsel Award.

NCLA recognized the winner of its Student Note Competition, Matthew Lambertson of the University of Florida’s Levin Law School, who earned a $10,000 prize to be split with the Florida Law Review for his illuminating publication entitled: “The Common Law and SEC Rule 10b-5(b): Narrowing the Securities ‘Fraud’ Exception to the First Amendment.”

Finally, NCLA honored newly retired former Senior Litigation Counsel Richard Samp with the Cincinnatus Award, celebrating his illustrious 30-plus-year career defending justice in our Republic.

We awarded Drs. Azadeh Khatibi, Tracy Høeg, Ram Duriseti, Aaron Kheriaty, and Pete Mazolewski NCLA’s Award for Client Bravery. NCLA represented these courageous doctors in the successful <a href="https://nclalegal.org/case/tracy-hoeg-m-d-et-al-v-gavin-newsom-governor-of-california-in-his-official-capacity-et-al/">Høeg v. Newsom</a> suit challenging a California state law that would have subjected them to discipline for sharing information with patients that departed from the “contemporary scientific consensus” on Covid-19. Gov. Newsom signed a bill to repeal the law, marking a major victory for our clients, free speech, and medical liberty.
NCLA also presented a “Georgie” award (a bust of George Washington) to Latham &amp; Watkins partner Roman Martinez for outstanding service to NCLA and our clients. He delivered oral argument to the Supreme Court in January in our <a href="https://nclalegal.org/case/relentless-inc-et-al-v-u-s-dept-of-commerce-et-al/">Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce</a> case against the unconstitutional Chevron doctrine.
The Buckeye Institute Director of Litigation David Tryon and Legal Fellow Alex Certo took home the Georgie for Best Amicus Brief, while A. Gregory Grimsal received the Best Local Counsel Award.
NCLA recognized the winner of its Student Note Competition, Matthew Lambertson of the University of Florida’s Levin Law School, who earned a $10,000 prize to be split with the Florida Law Review for his illuminating publication entitled: “The Common Law and SEC Rule 10b-5(b): Narrowing the Securities ‘Fraud’ Exception to the First Amendment.”
Finally, NCLA honored newly retired former Senior Litigation Counsel Richard Samp with the Cincinnatus Award, celebrating his illustrious 30-plus-year career defending justice in our Republic.

NCLA’s George Washington Award Recognizes Brave Clients and Accomplished Lawyers

We discuss Mark's recent column in Forbes: a brief review of five pending SCOTUS cases: (1) SEC v. Jarkesy; (2) Relentless v. Department of Commerce/ Loper Bright v. Raimondo; (3) Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve; (4) Garland v. Cargill; and (5) Starbucks v. McKinney. 

Administrative statists have floated a false narrative about the many indisputably important administrative law cases pending at the U.S. Supreme Court this term. With at least half a dozen such cases still awaiting decision by month’s end, it promises to be a watershed year.

Greater freedom and constitutional restoration appear to be in the offing, which may explain the liberal meltdown that has already begun. Before the Supreme Court (erroneously) upheld the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding mechanism last month, some commentators on the left were proclaiming that a decision leaving Congress to appropriate annual funds to the CFPB would trigger a second Great Depression.

Similarly absurd claims have abounded about the remaining undecided cases, so it is time to set the record straight lest bureaucratic caterwauling lead the Court further astray.

We discuss Mark's recent column in Forbes: a brief review of five pending SCOTUS cases: (1) SEC v. Jarkesy; (2) Relentless v. Department of Commerce/ Loper Bright v. Raimondo; (3) Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve; (4) Garland v. Cargill; and (5) Starbucks v. McKinney. 
Administrative statists have floated a false narrative about the many indisputably important administrative law cases pending at the U.S. Supreme Court this term. With at least half a dozen such cases still awaiting decision by month’s end, it promises to be a watershed year.
Greater freedom and constitutional restoration appear to be in the offing, which may explain the liberal meltdown that has already begun. Before the Supreme Court (erroneously) upheld the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding mechanism last month, some commentators on the left were proclaiming that a decision leaving Congress to appropriate annual funds to the CFPB would trigger a second Great Depression.
Similarly absurd claims have abounded about the remaining undecided cases, so it is time to set the record straight lest bureaucratic caterwauling lead the Court further astray.

A Watershed Supreme Court Term Will Not Drown The Administrative State

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision in National Association of Private Fund Managers v. Securities and Exchange Commission vacating SEC’s recent final rule restricting—and in some cases prohibiting—certain common contractual agreements between private investment funds and investment advisers.

Following the New Civil Liberties Alliance amicus curiaebrief’s advice, the Court declared that SEC exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating the unlawful rule because Congress never gave SEC oversight of this aspect of private funds. NCLA thanks securities law scholars Paul Mahoney, Adam Pritchard, and J.W. Verret for joining in NCLA’s brief as amicus partners.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a <a href="https://nclalegal.org/filing/opinion-of-the-u-s-court-of-appeals-for-the-fifth-circuit-8/">decision</a> in National Association of Private Fund Managers v. Securities and Exchange Commission vacating SEC’s recent final rule restricting—and in some cases prohibiting—certain common contractual agreements between private investment funds and investment advisers.
Following the New Civil Liberties Alliance amicus curiae <a href="https://nclalegal.org/filing/brief-of-securities-law-scholars-and-the-new-civil-liberties-alliance-as-amici-curiae-in-support-of-petitioners/">brief</a>’s advice, the Court declared that SEC exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating the unlawful rule because Congress never gave SEC oversight of this aspect of private funds. NCLA thanks securities law scholars Paul Mahoney, Adam Pritchard, and J.W. Verret for joining in NCLA’s brief as amicus partners.

SCOTUS rules in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America

In 1 playlist(s)

Administrative Static

Follow podcast

Recent clips