NCLA has filed for summary judgment in Flint Avenue v. Department of Labor, urging the Northern District of Texas to strike down a new DOL rule that exceeds its authority. The rule sets a $58,656 minimum salary for exempting “white collar” employees from FLSA’s wage and overtime requirements, impacting millions of workers nationwide. The rule would force employers to raise salaries or reclassify employees as hourly, limiting flexible work options. Flint Avenue, LLC, a small software company, faces losing its ability to offer perks like unlimited vacation. Tune in to hear Mark and Vec dive into this critical case.

Join Mark and Vec as they explore NCLA’s latest legal challenge in Colt & Joe Trucking v. U.S. Department of Labor. NCLA is fighting to overturn DOL’s new rule, which makes it harder for businesses to classify workers as independent contractors, potentially leading to increased FLSA liabilities for small businesses. This episode dives into issues with the rule, including its vague standards and the controversy surrounding Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su’s authority to enforce it. Tune in to learn more about this crucial case.

NCLA, with its founder Professor Philip Hamburger, has filed a crucial amicus curiae brief in the case of New York v. Donald Trump. They are challenging a New York law used by Attorney General Letitia James to prosecute Trump for alleged fraud. Unlike typical fraud cases, New York Executive Law § 63.12 allows for penalties simply for making incorrect business statements, without needing to prove intent or harm. NCLA argues that this law infringes on First Amendment rights and is urging the court to overturn it to safeguard free speech for everyone. In this episode, Mark, Vec, and Senior Litigation Counsel Greg Dolin discuss the case and its broader implications.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reversed a decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, bringing new momentum to the Darby Development Company v. U.S. case. This pivotal ruling challenges the CDC’s nationwide eviction moratorium as a potential violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Taking Clause, demanding just compensation for property owners. Join Mark and Vec as they discuss this landmark decision with NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Greg Dolin. Tune in to explore the implications of this ruling and what lies ahead for the case.

In its latest student loan legal challenge, NCLA has filed an amicus curiae brief in the case of Alaska, South Carolina, and Texas v. Department of Education before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. NCLA is pushing for the Court to uphold and expand a preliminary injunction against the Department’s "SAVE" plan, which unlawfully alters the 1993 Higher Education Act amendments to transform authorized student-loan-repayment plans into unauthorized loan-cancellation schemes—costing taxpayers $475 billion. With support from the Cato Institute and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, NCLA argues for halting this overreach of Executive Branch power. Vec and Jenin discuss the case in this episode.

In a significant victory for constitutional order, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled in Consumers’ Research v. Federal Communications Commission that Congress unlawfully delegated legislative power to the FCC, allowing it to control the Universal Service Fund (USF). NCLA played a pivotal role in this outcome, filing an amicus curiae brief that highlighted the legal flaws in the FCC's authority. Join Vec and NCLA General Counsel and Senior Litigation Counsel Zhonette Brown as they delve into this decision, its implications for the FCC, and what it means for American taxpayers.

Join Jenin and Vec, along with NCLA's Casey Norman, as they unpack the explosive case of Nephtalí De León, a celebrated Chicano writer and activist wrongfully terminated from his position as San Antonio’s poet laureate. NCLA has filed a Complaint against the City of San Antonio and city employee Krystal Jones, alleging De León's firing violated his First Amendment rights after he was defamed for a supposed "racial slur" in an elegy honoring a Chicano writer-activist. Discover how the City’s actions not only tarnished De León’s reputation but also undermined his lifelong fight against racial injustice. Tune in to explore the legal battle to restore his good name and what this case means for free speech in America.

Governor Gavin Newsom recently announced his intention to sign new legislation targeting the use of artificial intelligence in campaign ads, following a viral altered ad of Vice President Kamala Harris reposted by Elon Musk. The proposed law would mandate social media companies to remove deepfake content featuring political candidates 120 days before an election, placing the responsibility on these platforms to monitor and enforce the rules. In this episode, Vec and Jenin delve into the potential First Amendment implications of such laws. 

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.

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 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 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 is fighting back against the Department of Education’s $475 billion “SAVE” plan, which illegally shifts student loan debt to taxpayers! The plan rewrites the Higher Education Act in ways Congress never approved. After a divided Tenth Circuit panel lifted a crucial injunction against this scheme, NCLA has teamed up with the Cato Institute, Mackinac Center, and Defense of Freedom Institute to challenge this unconstitutional overreach. Join Mark, Vec, and Jenin as they dive into this explosive case and the battle to stop executive overreach!

NCLA is taking on government censorship once more! In Dressen v. Flaherty, we're challenging the federal government’s collusion with social media giants and the Stanford Internet Observatory’s Virality Project to censor online support groups for COVID-19 vaccine injuries, echoing our fight in Murthy v. Missouri. Join NCLA’s Casey Norman with Mark, Jenin, and Vec as they explore this critical case and the fight to restore the plaintiffs' civil liberties.

NCLA’s amicus brief in Mohamud v. Weyker takes on a dangerous trend of courts shielding cross-deputized officers from accountability. This critical case argues that Americans should still have the right to pursue damages for constitutional violations, even when officers are operating under both state and federal authority.  In this episode, Mark, Vec, and Jenin are joined by NCLA’s Casey Norman to unpack the implications of this high-stakes legal battle and how this case is pivotal for holding law enforcement accountable.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has overturned David Lesh’s criminal conviction, declaring that the USFS regulation banning “work activity” on their lands was too vague. Lesh’s crime? Posting photos on Instagram! In this episode, Jenin, Mark, and Vec delve into the case with NCLA’s Kara Rollins, exploring the ruling's implications and debating whether the petty offense exception needs a constitutional overhaul. 

The U.S. Supreme Court decided 6-3 to overturn the 1984 Chevron v. NRDC case, ending the unconstitutional Chevron doctrine. This landmark ruling came in NCLA’s case, Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce, argued alongside Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Court vacated the First Circuit’s decision upholding NOAA’s rule requiring fishing companies to pay for at-sea government monitors. In this episode, Mark, Vec, and Jenin continue to discuss this case and celebrate this monumental victory that NCLA has been fighting since the beginning!

The U.S. Supreme Court decided 6-3 to overturn the 1984 Chevron v. NRDC case, ending the unconstitutional Chevron doctrine. This landmark ruling came in NCLA’s case, Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce, argued alongside Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Court vacated the First Circuit’s decision upholding NOAA’s rule requiring fishing companies to pay for at-sea government monitors. In this episode, Mark, Vec, and Jenin celebrate this monumental victory, which will curtail administrative power abuses for years to come!

The U.S. Supreme Court revived Corner Post’s lawsuit challenging a Federal Reserve regulation, ruling 6-3 that the six-year limit for challenging the rule had not expired when the North Dakota convenience store filed suit in 2021. Agreeing with NCLA's amicus brief, the Court determined the statute of limitations should start when Corner Post began operating in 2018, despite the rule being issued in 2011. This decision allows for meaningful judicial review of regulations, even for new businesses. In this episode, Mark, Vec, and Jenin discuss the case and the win. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has restored the right to a jury trial for Americans facing the Administrative State by affirming the Fifth Circuit’s decision in SEC v. Jarkesy. This overturned the SEC’s unconstitutional administrative prosecution regime, which targeted George R. Jarkesy, Jr. in a lengthy administrative proceeding without a jury. The Court, agreeing with NCLA's brief, ruled 6-3 that the SEC violated Jarkesy’s Seventh Amendment rights. In this episode, Mark, Vec, and Jenin are joined by Senior Litigation Counsel Peggy Little to discuss and celebrate this historic victory vindicating Americans’ civil liberties.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, overturned a significant preliminary injunction granted by the Fifth Circuit in Murthy v. Missouri, ruling that the parties protected by the injunction lacked standing for future relief. The injunction had prevented officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, CISA, and the Surgeon General’s office from urging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech. The New Civil Liberties Alliance, representing Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, and Aaron Kheriaty, and Ms. Jill Hines, expresses disappointment over the Court's decision, which narrows Americans' First Amendment rights. Mark, Vec, and Jenin discuss where the Justices stood on this ruling in this latest episode. 

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, overturned a significant preliminary injunction granted by the Fifth Circuit in Murthy v. Missouri, ruling that the parties protected by the injunction lacked standing for future relief. The injunction had prevented officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, CISA, and the Surgeon General’s office from urging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech. The New Civil Liberties Alliance, representing Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, and Aaron Kheriaty, and Ms. Jill Hines, expresses disappointment over the Court's decision, which narrows Americans' First Amendment rights. Vec and Jenin discuss the ruling in this latest episode. 

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right to a jury trial for Americans facing administrative proceedings, striking down the SEC’s administrative prosecution regime. The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, ruling 6-3 that the SEC violated George R. Jarkesy Jr.’s Seventh Amendment rights by using an Administrative Law Judge without a jury. This decision, aligning with the New Civil Liberties Alliance’s amicus brief, marks a significant victory for civil liberties and limits the SEC’s abuse of power. Mark, Vec, and Jenin continue to discuss the win in this episode and dig into an interesting footnote. 

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right to a jury trial for Americans facing administrative proceedings, striking down the SEC’s administrative prosecution regime. The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, ruling 6-3 that the SEC violated George R. Jarkesy Jr.’s Seventh Amendment rights by using an Administrative Law Judge without a jury. This decision, aligning with the New Civil Liberties Alliance’s amicus brief, marks a significant victory for civil liberties and limits the SEC’s abuse of power. Mark, Vec, and Jenin celebrate the victory in this latest episode. 

As we anticipate the Supreme Court's decision in Murthy v. Missouri, NCLA's Jenin Younes has filed a motion in district court citing Congressional testimony revealing that Senior Advisor Dr. David Morens and Dr. Anthony Fauci used personal email accounts to evade Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests during the pandemic. Mark and Jenin delve into the details of this motion in their latest episode.

NCLA has filed a joint opening brief in National Center for Public Policy Research v. SEC, urging the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down new SEC rules requiring extensive climate-related disclosures by public companies. This challenge is combined with U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. SEC, where Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP represents the petitioners. NCLA represents the National Center for Public Policy Research alongside the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Texas Association of Business, and Longview Chamber of Commerce, arguing against the SEC's unconstitutional push for climate activism at the expense of civil liberties. Mark, Jenin, and Senior Litigation Counsel Andrew Morris discuss the case in their latest episode.

NCLA has filed an amicus curiae brief urging the Supreme Court to consider Chestek PLLC v. Vidal and prevent the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from bypassing notice-and-comment rulemaking. It is crucial that rules with significant economic impact are not issued without public input or consideration of all relevant information. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision below was erroneous as it effectively nullified a statute requiring the PTO to undergo notice-and-comment procedures before establishing rules. NCLA seeks Supreme Court intervention to correct this and reinstate the PTO's mandated accountability to the public. In their latest episode, Mark, Jenin, and Senior Litigation Counsel Greg Dolin discuss the details of the amicus brief.

NCLA has submitted an opening brief in Powell v. SEC, urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn the SEC’s refusal to amend its long-standing "Gag Rule." The rule, in place for over five decades, prohibits individuals who settle regulatory enforcement cases with the SEC from publicly criticizing their cases, even truthfully, for life. NCLA represents SEC enforcement targets affected by this rule and media organizations seeking to report on their experiences. After NCLA's initial petition challenging the Gag Rule was ignored for more than five years, the SEC only responded with a denial after NCLA filed a renewed petition in December. NCLA is now challenging this denial to stop the SEC from infringing on First Amendment rights. Mark, Jenin, and Senior Litigation Counsel Peggy Little discuss the case and the detrimental impact of the SEC's Gag Rule.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has reversed a district court decision in Johnson v. Smith that upheld a Kansas state law authorizing intrusive warrantless searches for dog training and handling businesses. NCLA filed an amicus curiaebrief explaining that the warrantless-search law infringes the Appellants’ Fourth Amendment rights “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” While the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Appellants’ claim that the state law violates their right to travel, it remanded the case to the lower court to determine whether the Fourth Amendment authorizes warrantless searches of dog training and handling businesses—the issue we briefed. In this episode, Mark and John celebrate the win and discuss the case

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 decision in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, overturning a deferential legal standard that has allowed the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to enjoin a company’s conduct without showing that it likely broke the law. Justice Thomas authored the Court’s opinion. Justice Jackson provided a ninth vote, concurring in the judgment, but dissenting in part at a length greater than the majority decision. The Court held that federal courts may not issue preliminary injunctions unless the NLRB meets four requirements: (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) it would suffer irreparable injury absent an injunction; (3) the balance of equities favors an injunction; and (4) an injunction serves the public interest.  Today’s decision overrules the five federal circuits that have been applying a relaxed standard when NLRB seeks a preliminary injunction, permitting it to punish an employer based on legal and factual allegations that are most likely meritless. In this episode, Mark, John, and Jenin discuss celebrate the victory and discuss the case. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 in the NCLA case of Garland v. Cargill that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ unilateral bump-stock ban conflicts with the federal statute defining “machineguns.” ATF’s regulatory ban, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit shot down early last year, reversed the agency’s own long-standing recognition that bump-stock-equipped firearms are not machine guns. NCLA commends the high court for permanently setting ATF’s ban aside, safeguarding the rights of our client Michael Cargill and hundreds of thousands of other Americans to be free from laws written by executive branch bureaucrats instead of elected members of Congress. Mark, John, and Jenin celebrate this victory and dive into the case and the meaning of "machineguns" in this latest episode.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 in the NCLA case of Garland v. Cargill that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ unilateral bump-stock ban conflicts with the federal statute defining “machineguns.” ATF’s regulatory ban, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit shot down early last year, reversed the agency’s own long-standing recognition that bump-stock-equipped firearms are not machine guns. NCLA commends the high court for permanently setting ATF’s ban aside, safeguarding the rights of our client Michael Cargill and hundreds of thousands of other Americans to be free from laws written by executive branch bureaucrats instead of elected members of Congress. Mark and John celebrate this historic victory in this latest episode.

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 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.

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 New Civil Liberties Alliance sent a letter informing Dr. Anthony Fauci, his Senior Advisor Dr. David Morens, Dr. Peter Daszak, Dr. Gerald Keusch, Dr. Richard Roberts, Dr. Francis Collins, and Google that they are legally obligated to preserve all documents, communications, and electronically stored information related to their official government business. NCLA represents 4 of the 5 individual plaintiffs in the Murthy v. Missouri case with an appeal from the grant of a preliminary injunction now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Dr. Fauci and other government defendants violated our clients’ First Amendment rights through involvement in censoring their speech on social media that was not in line with the government’s position of Covid-19 and related issues.

The Fulbright-Hays Fellowship supports U.S. students conducting foreign language research abroad. However, since 1998, the Department of Education has unfairly penalized "non-native-born" students who learned the language through heritage, denying them 15 points out of 105 for language proficiency. Samar Ahmad and Edgar Ulloa Lujan, fluent in Arabic and Spanish respectively, faced penalties despite their proficiency. This discrimination contradicts the fellowship's purpose and violates students' due process rights. NCLA filed Edgar Ulloa Lujan, Samar Ahmad, and Veronica Gonzalez v. U.S. Department of Education, et al. challenging the "native language penalty." This rule unfairly discriminates against American citizens from non-English-speaking countries and their children, barring them from the Fulbright-Hays Fellowship based on their national heritage language. In this episode, NCLA's Sheng Li joins Mark and Vec to discuss this case. 

NCLA submitted comments urging the U.S. Department of Education to abandon its latest proposed rule that would unconstitutionally cancel $147 billion of federal student loan debt owed to the Treasury by an estimated 27.6 million borrowers. The plan even proposes to bestow about $19 billion of that on about 750,000 student loan debtors whose average annual household income exceeds $300,000! Outrageously, that sum means American taxpayers would give more than $25,000 apiece to debtor households making over $300,000 per year. Congress has repeatedly declined to erase such debt, and the Department of Education lacks legal authority to do so unilaterally. NCLA calls for an end to this latest Biden Administration attempt at subverting the rule of law to erase student loan debt. NCLA's Sheng Li joins Mark, Vec and Jenin to discuss the comments.

The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic probes into inflammatory emails authored by a top adviser to Fauci. David Morens, a seasoned federal scientist currently on administrative leave, admitted to deleting emails and using a personal account to avoid disclosing correspondence under the Freedom of Information Act. Join Mark, Vec, and Jenin as they dissect this hearing in the latest episode.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in NRA v. Vullo that the National Rifle Association plausibly accused New York Department of Financial Services Superintendent Maria Vullo of violating its rights to free speech and association. In so doing, it reversed a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which had held Vullo’s alleged actions amounted to permissible government speech and enforcement of state law.  NCLA filed an amicus brief, urging the Justices to decide NRA’s complaint stated a claim upon which relief against Vullo’s unconstitutional conduct, if proven, could be granted.  In this episode, Mark, Vec, and Jenin discuss the victory. 

NCLA's Fourth Annual King George III Prize is coming to a close! This campaign highlights the most egregious violations of our basic civil liberties by those responsible for such abuses. In the spirit of March Madness and King George, we are hosting two tournament brackets: one featuring 16 nominees from state and federal agencies and officials who committed the worst civil liberties abuses in 2023, and another devoted exclusively to 16 state and federal officials who focused on censorship and violating the First Amendment in 2023. In the Censorship Championship, it's Mayorkas vs. Blinken, while Cardona and Regan go head-to-head in the Runaway Regulator Championship. In this episode, Mark and Jenin discuss the award and our finalists.

NCLA President Mark Chenoweth recently attended the Fifth Circuit Judicial Conference in Austin, TX, where he served as a panelist in a discussion on constitutional challenges to the administrative state and upcoming developments in this area. The panel was so widely attended that the conference scheduled it twice! In this episode, Mark discusses the conference and its highlights with Jenin.

Congratulations to NCLA's Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione for being named among Washington DC's 500 Most Influential People of 2024 by the Washingtonian! Their unwavering commitment to defending civil liberties is truly commendable and sets a powerful example. In this episode, Mark and Jenin discuss the award as well as the Bradley Award recently bestowed upon NCLA client Jay Bhattacharya for his work during the pandemic.

The Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in Harrow v. Department of Defense. In this case, the Court reviewed a judgment from the Federal Circuit, which originally stemmed from a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit had held that the 60-day statutory deadline for Harrow to file his petition for review was a “jurisdictional requirement” and thus “precludes equitable exceptions.” In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Federal Circuit's judgment. The Court held that the 60-day deadline is not a jurisdictional requirement and therefore does not preclude equitable exceptions. In this episode, Mark and Jenin discuss how this decision could affect Metal Conversion Technologies, LLC v. United States Department of Transportation, a case for which the NCLA has filed a cert petition.

The NCLA has notified the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) of its intent to sue the agency over Commissioner Richard Trumka’s alleged violation of Dreamland Baby Co.’s constitutional and statutory rights. Dreamland, which manufactures infant and toddler products, claims Trumka made false and damaging public statements suggesting its wearable infant sleep sacks caused infant deaths. The NCLA’s letter demands that CPSC and Trumka preserve all related documents and communications and cease their illegal actions against Dreamland.  NCLA's Kara Rollins joins Mark, Vec, and Jenin to discuss the details.

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! 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal of the In re Bystolic antitrust lawsuit! NCLA supported this outcome in its amicus brief, while the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) supported the plaintiffs despite not filing suit. NCLA argued that plaintiffs must show a large net payment, not just a large gross payment, to prove antitrust violations. The Second Circuit ruled that plaintiffs failed to state a valid claim. NCLA and the International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE) applaud this decision! Mark and Vec discuss and celebrate the victory in this latest episode. 

NCLA has filed a brief urging the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to overturn Nasdaq’s "Board Diversity Rules," which the SEC implemented without statutory authority. These rules require Nasdaq-listed companies to meet gender, race, and sexual orientation quotas for their boards or explain why, under threat of delisting. Additionally, the SEC will provide lists of candidates to companies unable to meet these quotas. A Fifth Circuit panel had upheld these rules, but the en banc court has agreed to rehear the case. The 1934 Securities and Exchange Act restricts the SEC to roles ensuring fair markets, investor protection, and efficient capital formation, which the NCLA argues the SEC has exceeded. Mark, Vec, and Jenin are joined by NCLA's Peggy Little to discuss the recent oral argument in the case. 

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has denied nearly all of the government’s motion to dismiss NCLA’s lawsuit, The Daily Wire, The Federalist, Texas v. State Dept., which alleges massive violations of free speech and press rights. The Court also granted NCLA’s request for expedited discovery and rejected the government’s request to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. NCLA now looks forward to revealing the true depth of this egregious censorship regime via expedited discovery, and to stopping the State Department from abridging Americans’ civil liberties. Jenin Younes and NCLA's Peggy Little continue to discuss the case and the judge's order. 

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has denied nearly all of the government’s motion to dismiss NCLA’s lawsuit, The Daily Wire, The Federalist, Texas v. State Dept., which alleges massive violations of free speech and press rights. The Court also granted NCLA’s request for expedited discovery and rejected the government’s request to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. NCLA now looks forward to revealing the true depth of this egregious censorship regime via expedited discovery, and to stopping the State Department from abridging Americans’ civil liberties. Jenin Younes is joined by NCLA's Peggy Little to discuss the case and celebrate this recent victory!