NCLA is taking a stand in Bristol Myers Squibb Company v. Becerra! We've filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, challenging the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) attempt to hold a company’s business hostage to force it to give up its constitutional property rights. Our brief argues that this violates the “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine, which protects against indirect violations of constitutional rights.

Tune in as NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel joins Mark and Vec to break down this critical legal battle and its broader implications.

NCLA is taking a stand in Bristol Myers Squibb Company v. Becerra! We've filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, challenging the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) attempt to hold a company’s business hostage to force it to give up its constitutional property rights. Our brief argues that this violates the “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine, which protects against indirect violations of constitutional rights.
Tune in as NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel joins Mark and Vec to break down this critical legal battle and its broader implications.

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

NCLA Asks Third Circuit to Rule Against HHS’s Coercive Medicare Drug Price ‘Negotiation’ Program

In a recent ruling, a Delaware judge dismissed Nina Jankowicz’s lawsuit against Fox News. The judge found that the alleged defamatory statements about Jankowicz—former head of the DHS disinformation board—were either focused on the board itself or were materially true. Jankowicz had claimed Fox falsely accused her of wanting to censor speech and edit tweets. This case has important implications for discussions on disinformation and social media censorship, touching on themes similar to the NCLA's Murthy v. Missouri case.

Tune in as Mark and Vec break down the details and impact of this significant legal development.

In a recent ruling, a Delaware judge dismissed Nina Jankowicz’s lawsuit against Fox News. The judge found that the alleged defamatory statements about Jankowicz—former head of the DHS disinformation board—were either focused on the board itself or were materially true. Jankowicz had claimed Fox falsely accused her of wanting to censor speech and edit tweets. This case has important implications for discussions on disinformation and social media censorship, touching on themes similar to the NCLA's Murthy v. Missouri case.
Tune in as Mark and Vec break down the details and impact of this significant legal development.

Judge Dismisses Jankowicz Lawsuit Against Fox News: What It Means for Disinformation and Free Speech

NCLA is challenging the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission for its misleading and harmful claims about Dreamland Baby Co.'s weighted sleep products. Our formal demand for a retraction addresses Commissioner Richard Trumka's unfounded warnings and the CPSC’s failure to follow proper procedures before making safety claims. Discover how we’re pushing back against these unjust actions and ensuring that government agencies adhere to the law.

Join Litigation Counsel Kara Rollins, Vec, and Mark as they explore this pivotal battle for legal integrity and consumer rights.

NCLA is challenging the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission for its misleading and harmful claims about Dreamland Baby Co.'s weighted sleep products. Our formal demand for a retraction addresses Commissioner Richard Trumka's unfounded warnings and the CPSC’s failure to follow proper procedures before making safety claims. Discover how we’re pushing back against these unjust actions and ensuring that government agencies adhere to the law.
Join Litigation Counsel Kara Rollins, Vec, and Mark as they explore this pivotal battle for legal integrity and consumer rights.

NCLA Demands CPSC and Comr. Trumka Rescind False Statements Disparaging Weighted Sleep Sacks

NCLA has filed an amicus curiae brief urging the Supreme Court to hear Consumers’ Research v. Consumer Product Safety Commission. This case presents a golden opportunity to overturn the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor v. Federal Trade Commission decision and address the unconstitutional structure of the CPSC. Under current law, the President can only fire CPSC commissioners “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office,” insulating them from removal and violating the “Take Care” clause of Article II of the Constitution. The Fifth Circuit upheld this structure by invoking Humphrey’s Executor, which wrongly supported FTC Commissioners' similar protections.

In this episode, Senior Litigation Counsel Greg Dolin joins Mark and Vec to dive into the details and implications of this case.

NCLA has filed an amicus curiae brief urging the Supreme Court to hear Consumers’ Research v. Consumer Product Safety Commission. This case presents a golden opportunity to overturn the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor v. Federal Trade Commission decision and address the unconstitutional structure of the CPSC. Under current law, the President can only fire CPSC commissioners “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office,” insulating them from removal and violating the “Take Care” clause of Article II of the Constitution. The Fifth Circuit upheld this structure by invoking Humphrey’s Executor, which wrongly supported FTC Commissioners' similar protections.
In this episode, Senior Litigation Counsel Greg Dolin joins Mark and Vec to dive into the details and implications of this case.

NCLA Asks Third Circuit to Rule Against HHS’s Coercive Medicare Drug Price ‘Negotiation’ Program

In 1 playlist(s)

Administrative Static

Follow podcast

Recent clips