Members of the NCLA team atteneded in The Federalist Society's Twelfth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference (EBRXII) this week. The conference showcased a diverse array of speakers and addressed an extensive range of topics, spanning from overarching government policies to nuanced discussions on environmental law, border security, the relevance of Humphrey's Executor, safeguarding religious freedom in non-discrimination laws, and the principles and challenges surrounding U.S. financial regulations. Mark and Vec are joined by Zhonette Brown who gives her take on the conference and the topics discussed. 

The EEOC's Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) requires a covered employer to provide a “reasonable accommodation” to a qualified employee’s or applicant’s known limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause the employer an “undue hardship.” The PWFA went into effect on June 27, 2023 and on April 15, 2024 the EEOC issued its final regulation to carry out the law. The final regulation goes into effect on June 18, 2024. In this episode, Mark, Vec, and Jenin discuss this regulation. 

NCLA continues to fight on behalf of Honorable Judge Pauline Newman as she faces unjust attempts from her colleagues to remove her from a constitutionally appointed lifetime position as a Federal Cir. Judge. This case isn’t just about restoring her to the bench—it is about the very independence of the federal judiciary and the ability of each federal judge to fulfill the office constitutionally entrusted to her. Mark and Vec are joined by NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Geg Dolin who provides updates on Judge Pauline Newman’s case against the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit.

NCLA launched a Complaint against the SEC challenging the agency’s unconstitutional “Consolidated Audit Trail.” The CAT is the largest government-mandated mass collection of personal financial data in American history. Without any statutory authority, SEC is forcing brokers, exchanges, clearing agencies and alternative trading systems to capture and send detailed information on every investor’s trades in U.S. markets to a centralized database, which SEC and private regulators can access forever. Mark and Vec are joined by NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Andrew Morris to discuss this unlawful, unprecedented seizure and mass surveillance scheme.

NCLA is proud to announce the Fourth Annual King George III Prize—a campaign to call attention to the most egregious violations of our basic civil liberties by people and institutions responsible for those abuses. In this episode, NCLA's Clegg Ivey joins Mark to discuss the latest brackets in the contest.

In NCLA's SEC v. Spartan Securities Group, the SEC brought 14 counts against Appellants, alleging their participation in two schemes to aid and abet the creation of fake publicly traded companies and subsequent issuance of stock between December 2009 and August 2014. After a 12-day trial in July 2021, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellants on 13 of the 14 counts charged. The sole remaining count in favor of SEC—that Appellants made materially misleading statements or omissions in connection with the purchase of the issuers’ securities—led the court to award various monetary and equitable remedies, including disgorgement. In this episode, Vec is joined by NCLA's Kara Rollins to discuss the case and the SEC’s request for disgorgement. 

The government is attempting to dismiss Honorable Judge Pauline Newman’s lawsuit in district court over unjust attempts from her colleagues to remove her from a constitutionally appointed lifetime position as a Federal Circuit Judge.  Vec and Jenin are joined by NCLA's Greg Dolin who provides updates on Judge Newman's case.

NCLA has long been challenging the Biden Administration's unlawful student loan forgiveness scam as it undermines Congress and costs Americans billions in taxes.  In this episode, Vec and Jenin are joined by NCLA's Sheng Li to discuss the recent updates in the President's plan. 

NCLA is proud to announce the Fourth Annual King George III Prize—a campaign to call attention to the most egregious violations of our basic civil liberties by people and institutions responsible for those abuses. In this episode, NCLA's Clegg Ivey joins Mark to discuss the latest brackets in the contest.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance has filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit to review the SEC’s denial of our long-standing petition to amend the agency’s “Gag Rule.” In place for over five decades, this pernicious rule forbids every American who settles a regulatory enforcement case with SEC from even truthfully criticizing their cases in public. Representing several SEC enforcement targets silenced by the Gag Rule, NCLA’s Peggy Little talks with Vec about the petition and this egregious trampling of First Amendment rights.

In Høeg v. Newsom, NCLA represents several California physicians whose First Amendment rights were violated by Assembly Bill (AB) 2098—a law that subjected physicians to discipline for giving patients advice about Covid-related matters that didn’t comport with the “scientific consensus.” Many bad government actors have avoided facing legal consequences for unconstitutional actions by abusing the mootness doctrine. In this episode, NCLA’s Jenin Younes discusses the recent oral argument in Høeg v. Newsom and the exploitation of the mootness doctrine.

In Reid v. James Madison University, NCLA represents Alyssa Reid, a former forensics coach at James Madison University whose case provides yet another example of how Title IX has been hijacked and weaponized to exact revenge for a bad breakup. NCLA’s complaint argues that the actions of James Madison University, assisted by the Dept. of Education, deprived Ms. Reid of her rights and entitlements as protected by the constitutions of both the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia, as well as by Title IX itself. In this episode, NCLA’s Greg Dolin joins Mark to discuss the case.

NCLA filed a Complaint urging the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to declare that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board is a private entity unlawfully exerting government power. The unconstitutionally structured Board exercises sweeping legislative, executive, and pseudo-judicial power bestowed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, but it is staffed entirely by non-governmental private citizens who are subject to very little direction, oversight, or supervision from federal officials. This arrangement violates Article I, Sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Mark is joined by NCLA's Russ Ryan to discuss the case. 

The Biden Administration’s illegal plan to unilaterally cancel student loan debt is getting pushback in the courts from NCLA. NCLA represents the Cato Institute, a nonprofit organization that promotes individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peaceful international relations. The complaint argues the Biden Administration’s arbitrary one-time student loan debt cancellation scheme violates the Constitution’s Appropriations and Vesting clauses, infringing on Congress’ sole power of the purse. The program abuses the Department of Education’s discretionary power and must be set aside. Mark is joined by NCLA's Russ Ryan to discuss the case and the recent oral argument. 

NCLA has filed an opening brief in National Center for Public Policy Research v. SEC urging the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to set aside Nasdaq’s unconstitutional “Board Diversity Rules,” which SEC promulgated without statutory authority. These Rules impose gender, race and sexual orientation quotas on corporate board membership for Nasdaq-listed companies. Further, the Rules compel companies that fail to meet their board seat quotas to explain why or face involuntary delisting from the stock exchange. A Fifth Circuit panel had upheld the Board Diversity Rules, but the en banc court granted NCLA’s request to rehear the case. In this episode, Mark, Vec, and Jenin are joined by NCLA's Peggy Little to discuss the case. 

NCLA has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari in Changizi v. HHS, a lawsuit combating the government’s unconstitutional assault on freedom of speech. NCLA’s petition asks the Court to resolve a circuit split between the Fifth and Sixth Circuits on what plaintiffs must show to satisfy Article III standing in censorship cases against the government. Officials in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have violated the First Amendment by directing social media companies to censor viewpoints that conflict with HHS’s Covid-19 messaging. The petition urges the Court to overturn the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruling that NCLA clients Mark Changizi, Michael Senger, and Daniel Kotzin lacked standing to challenge the censorship regime that silenced them. Mark and Vec discuss the case in this latest episode. 

NCLA is proud to announce the Fourth Annual King George III Prize—a campaign to call attention to the most egregious violations of our basic civil liberties by people and institutions responsible for those abuses. In keeping with the spirit of March Madness and King George, we are introducing two tournament brackets: one with 16 nominees comprising the state and federal agencies and officials who committed the worst abuses of civil liberties in 2023 and a second bracket devoted exclusively to 16 state and federal officials who dedicated their efforts to censorship and violating the First Amendment in 2023. In this episode, NCLA's Clegg Ivey joins Mark to discuss the contest. 

Administrative adjudication is an unconstitutional system! It evades almost all of the procedural rights guaranteed under the Constitution. It subjects Americans to biased adjudication without real judges or juries and denies them their right to due process. NCLA's Mark Chenoweth provided full testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last week on reining in agency adjudication and discuss in this episode. 

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in NCLA's Murthy v. Missouri, considering whether to uphold a historic preliminary injunction granted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The injunction, temporarily stayed by the Court, would bar officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and Surgeon General’s office from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech. The injuries to NCLA’s clients—Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Aaron Kheriaty, and Martin Kulldorff, and Ms. Jill Hines—supplied standing for many of the arguments made in the courtroom, urging the Court to uphold the injunction in defense of Americans’ First Amendment rights. In this episode, Mark and Vec discuss the oral argument and the case. 

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in NCLA's Murthy v. Missouri, considering whether to uphold a historic preliminary injunction granted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The injunction, temporarily stayed by the Court, would bar officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and Surgeon General’s office from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech. The injuries to NCLA’s clients—Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Aaron Kheriaty, and Martin Kulldorff, and Ms. Jill Hines—supplied standing for many of the arguments made in the courtroom, urging the Court to uphold the injunction in defense of Americans’ First Amendment rights. In this episode, Mark and Vec discuss the oral argument and the case. 

NCLA has filed a brief opposing summary judgment in its client Dr. Mukund Vengalattore’s lawsuit alleging that Cornell University’s biased and faulty sexual misconduct investigation discriminated against him in violation of Title IX and defamed him. Cornell’s scheme was driven in part by the university’s Title IX office, which succumbed to pressure from the Department of Education (DOE) to rig its investigatory and adjudicatory processes against men accused of sexual misconduct. In this episode, Litigation Counsel Casey Norman joins Mark to discuss the case.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance is challenging the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) in federal court for coordinating with Google to automatically install spyware on the smartphones of more than one million Commonwealth residents, without their knowledge or consent, in a misguided effort to combat Covid-19.  Mark is joined by Litigation Counsel Sheng Li to discuss. 

The Internal Revenue Service unlawfully seized financial records of New Civil Liberties Alliance client James Harper and thousands of others from a cryptocurrency exchange through abuse of a “John Doe” summons, without notifying account holders so they could contest the summons. IRS took Mr. Harper’s documents without any individualized suspicion to believe he had under-reported his income or failed to pay tax, and it denied him procedural due process to challenge the seizure. NCLA has filed a reply brief in Harper v. Werfel, urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to rule that these actions violated Mr. Harper’s statutory, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights. NCLA filed the opening brief on October 13, 2023. Mark discusses the case and the recent oral argument with Litigation Counsel Sheng Li.

NCLA has petitioned SCOTUS to hear Norris v. Stanley regarding Michigan State University’s unlawful and unscientific Covid-19 vaccine mandate. MSU fired two of NCLA’s three clients, all of whom had naturally acquired immunity to Covid, for refusing the vaccine. By conditioning their public employment on receiving unnecessary medical treatment, MSU violated their constitutional right to refuse medical intervention and ignored their statutory right to informed consent. Senior Litigation Counsel Gregory Dolin joins Mark and Vec in this episode to discuss the case.

NCLA settled with DOE and the Energy Information Administration to formally end an attempt to force cryptocurrency mining companies including members of the Texas Blockchain Council to hand over sensitive information about their operations through a mandatory Cryptocurrency Mining Facilities Survey. NCLA alleged that the Office of Management and Budget had given EIA emergency permission to collect this data despite EIA’s failure to demonstrate that short cutting the statutory process would prevent public harm, as federal law requires. Vec and NCLA Litigation Counsel Kara Rollins discuss this shape shifter crypto case and celebrate NCLA’s victory in defense of privacy rights and the rule of law.

NCLA settled with DOE and the Energy Information Administration to formally end an attempt to force cryptocurrency mining companies including members of the Texas Blockchain Council to hand over sensitive information about their operations through a mandatory Cryptocurrency Mining Facilities Survey. NCLA alleged that the Office of Management and Budget had given EIA emergency permission to collect this data despite EIA’s failure to demonstrate that short cutting the statutory process would prevent public harm, as federal law requires. Vec and NCLA Litigation Counsel Kara Rollins discuss this shape shifter crypto case and celebrate NCLA’s victory in defense of privacy rights and the rule of law.

NCLA has petitioned the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus to force the SEC to stop delaying its ruling on our client Eric S. Smith’s appeal of an unlawful Financial Industry Regulatory Authority disciplinary decision. FINRA banned Mr. Smith from the securities brokerage industry for life and heavily fined him based on faulty accusations and despite lacking any legal right to punish him in the first place. The SEC has refused to rule on Mr. Smith’s subsequent appeal for over three years, depriving him of his livelihood, severely damaging his reputation and business prospects, and violating his statutory and constitutional rights. Vec and NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Russ Ryan discuss Mr. Smith’s case.

NCLA filed a Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee challenging the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s secret, unaccountable, and inherently biased prosecutorial processes. PCAOB has investigated and brought a secret prosecution aiming to brand NCLA’s client a wrongdoer, strip away his livelihood and impose severe financial penalties against him—without a jury trial, due process of law, an impartial adjudicator, or any constitutional accountability. NCLA’s client, John Doe (a pseudonym used to protect his anonymity), asks the Court to stop these disciplinary proceedings and declare them unconstitutional. Vec and Senior Litigation Counsel Russ Ryan discuss John Doe v. PCAOB.

NCLA has settled with DOE and EIA to formally end an attempt to force cryptocurrency mining companies to hand over sensitive information about their operations through a mandatory Cryptocurrency Mining Facilities Survey. NCLA alleged that OMB had given EIA emergency permission to collect this data despite EIA’s failure to demonstrate that short-cutting the statutory process would prevent public harm, as federal law requires. Mark and Vec discuss Texas Blockchain Council v. Dept. of Energy and celebrate this victory in defense of privacy rights and the rule of law.

NCLA filed an amicus curiae brief at the Supreme Court in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, a case challenging a deferential legal standard that allows the National Labor Relations Board to enjoin a company’s conduct without showing that it likely broke the law. NLRB can initiate an administrative enforcement proceeding and then obtain a preliminary injunction in federal district court just by demonstrating that (1) its claims are not frivolous, and (2) those claims serve NLRB’s remedial purposes. The Sixth Circuit upheld the injunction due to prior circuit precedent. NCLA’s brief asks the Supreme Court to reject this textually baseless test, reverse the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, and require NLRB to satisfy the same injunction standard as every other litigant. Mark and Vec discuss Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney and NCLA’s corresponding amicus brief.

Last week, former Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell presented oral argument to the Supreme Court in NCLA's Garland v. Cargill case, demonstrating that ATF's unilateral bump-stock ban conflicts with the federal statute defining “machineguns.” NCLA’s client, Texas gun shop owner, and Army veteran Michael Cargill, appeared in the courtroom and NCLA anticipates a Supreme Court decision later this term that will prevent ATF from criminalizing innocent Americans. Mark and Vec discuss Garland v. Cargill and what happened at oral argument.

Last week, former Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell presented oral argument to the Supreme Court in NCLA's Garland v. Cargill case, demonstrating that ATF's unilateral bump-stock ban conflicts with the federal statute defining “machineguns.” NCLA’s client, Texas gun shop owner, and Army veteran Michael Cargill, appeared in the courtroom and NCLA anticipates a Supreme Court decision later this term that will prevent ATF from criminalizing innocent Americans. Mark and Vec discuss Garland v. Cargill and what happened at oral argument.

The Eighth Circuit upheld the dismissal of Corner Post’s lawsuit challenging a Federal Reserve regulation, ruling that the six-year statute of limitations to challenge the rule had already expired. However, Corner Post did not exist until more than six years after the rule issued, and it filed suit less than four years after opening for business. NCLA filed an amicus curiae brief in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, urging SCOTUS to allow the lawsuit to go forward in such circumstances and protect judicial review. NCLA Litigation Counsel Kara Rollins joins Mark and Vec to go over the oral argument at the Supreme Court last week in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

This week, NCLA will be presenting oral argument before SCOTUS in Garland v. Cargill, a case that challenges ATF’s unlawful expansion of the statutory definition of a “machinegun.” Mark and Vec preview the upcoming oral argument in Garland v. Cargill before the highest court in the land.

NCLA filed an amicus curiae brief in American Securities Association v. Securities and Exchange Commission, urging the Eleventh Circuit to set aside an SEC order requiring financial industry broker-dealers to fund a “Consolidated Audit Trail” (CAT) that Congress never authorized. Unless the Court intervenes to stop it, these costs will be passed on to the investing American public as an unlegislated tax. Mark is joined by NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Andrew Morris to discuss NCLA’s amicus brief in American Securities Association v. Securities v. SEC.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has agreed to an en banc rehearing of NCLA’s National Center for Public Policy Research v. SEC lawsuit challenging “Board Diversity Rules” that SEC promulgated without statutory authority. These rules impose race, gender, and sexual orientation quotas on corporate board membership for companies listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange, along with compelling corporate speech to explain any quota missed. Mark is joined by Senior Litigation Counsel Peggy Little to discuss National Center for Public Policy Research v. SEC and the upcoming argument in which NCLA will urge the Fifth Circuit to set these unlawful rules aside.

NCLA has filed a petition urging SCOTUS to hear Metal Conversion Techs. v. DOT and decide that courts can equitably toll statutory deadlines to forestall agencies from tricking their enforcement targets. Metal Conversion Technologies is a family-owned company that the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) tried to punish via an unconstitutionally appointed agency adjudicator. DOT then failed to disclose the official’s improper appointment, preventing the company from seeking judicial review of the civil penalty on that basis within the normal statutory deadline.  Mark and Vec discuss Metal Conversion Techs. v. DOT.

NCLA filed an amicus curiae  brief asking the Fifth Circuit to rehear the case of Consumers’ Research v.CPSC en banc to decide whether CPSC’s structure is unconstitutional. CPSC Commissioners unquestionably wield executive power, yet the President cannot remove them at will.   Mark and Vec discuss why the Fifth Circuit should correct this glaring arrogation of the executive power in Consumers’ Research v.CPSC.

A Washington, D.C. federal court has dismissed a portion of the Honorable Judge Pauline Newman’s lawsuit over unjust attempts from her colleagues to remove her from a constitutionally appointed lifetime position as a Federal Circuit.  Mark and Vec provide updates on Newman v. Moore with Greg Dolin. 

Forty-five Members of Congress, 16 states, state legislators, former government officials, journalists, attorneys, media personalities, academics, activist groups and research organizations have filed 27 amici curiae briefs supporting the New Civil Liberties Alliance’s position in Murthy v. Missouri against government-directed censorship.   Mark and Vec discuss Murthy v. Missouri and the wave of support from amici.

In United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz, the Supreme Court considered whether private individuals can sue the federal government for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Last week, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the federal government is subject to suit under the FCRA. This decision will now allow consumers to sue one of the nation’s largest credit reporters whenever it gives false information about them to credit reporting agencies. Mark and Vec talk about Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz and the Supreme Court’s decision.

The IRS unlawfully seized financial records of NCLA’s client James Harper and thousands of others from a cryptocurrency exchange through abuse of a “John Doe” summons, without notifying account holders so they could contest the summons. IRS took Mr. Harper’s documents without any individualized suspicion to believe he had under-reported his income or failed to pay tax, and it denied him procedural due process to challenge the seizure. Mark highlights NCLA’s reply brief in Harper v. Werfel, which urges the Court to rule that these actions violated Mr. Harper’s statutory, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights.

The U.S. State Department has funded the development of censorship technology used to suppress First Amendment-protected speech by disfavored media outlets such as The Daily Wire and The Federalist based on their viewpoints. NCLA proudly represents these outlets in The Daily Wire, The Federalist, State of Texas v. State Dept. and hoping the Court will block this unlawful censorship regime before it can further abridge Americans’ civil liberties. Mark discusses The Daily Wire, The Federalist, Texas v. State Dept. and the filing of NCLA’s recent motion for a preliminary injunction to stop this direct violation of free speech and free press rights.

NCLA has filed a brief for the respondents in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Murthy v. Missouri, urging the Justices to uphold a historic preliminary injunction that would bar officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, CISA, and Surgeon General’s office from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech. NCLA eagerly anticipates presenting oral arguments to the Supreme Court on March 18, in defense of Americans’ First Amendment rights. Vec discusses the latest developments in Murthy v. Missouri.

While Chevron deference is being challenged before the Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is also revisiting Humphrey’s Executor v. United States—a 1935 SCOTUS decision that protects powerful federal agency commissioners from being fired by the president. Mark and Vec discuss Edith Jones and Don Willett’s disagreement over Humphrey’s Executor.

NCLA is standing up for the Honorable Judge Pauline Newman as she faces unjust attempts from her colleagues to remove her from a constitutionally appointed lifetime position as a Federal Circuit Judge. This case isn’t just about restoring her to the bench—it is about the very independence of the federal judiciary and the ability of each federal judge to fulfill the office constitutionally entrusted to her. NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Greg Dolin discusses the recent oral argument in Newman v. Moore.

The IRS unlawfully seized financial records of NCLA’s client James Harper and thousands of others from a cryptocurrency exchange through abuse of a “John Doe” summons, without notifying account holders so they could contest the summons. NCLA has filed a reply brief in the case, urging the First Circuit to rule that these actions violated Mr. Harper’s statutory, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights. Mark and Vec discuss the agency’s egregious violation of Americans’ rights and the reply brief in Harper v. Werfel.

The SEC denied NCLA’s long-standing petition to amend the agency’s “Gag Rule,” under which SEC forbids every American with whom it settles a regulatory enforcement case from even truthfully criticizing their cases in public. NCLA will challenge SEC’s denial of the petition in court, defending Americans against the Gag Rule’s constitutional and statutory defects. NCLA Litigation Counsel Kara Rollins joins Mark and Vec to discuss SEC denying NCLA’s petition to amend its “Gag Rule”.

Invoking the contentious “qualified immunity” doctrine, state courts in Rhode Island prevented Rhode Island College officials from facing civil liability for violating a student’s First Amendment rights to free speech and expression. NCLA has petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari in William Felkner v. John Nazarian, asking the Justices to reexamine the doctrine and abolish the ahistorical standard for “qualified immunity” that requires violations of the law to be “clearly established” via prior court precedents before officials can be held to account. NCLA Senior Litigation Peggy Little joins Mark to discuss Felkner v. Nazarian and the reply brief filed in the case last week.

NCLA filed an amicus curiae brief in Elon Musk v. Securities and Exchange Commission urging the Supreme Court to strike down SEC’s “Gag Rule” censoring every American with whom it settles a regulatory enforcement case. The SEC is limiting Mr. Musk’s future speech and ability to speak publicly without preclearance or criticize the agency as a condition of settlement. This is a quintessential instance of prior restraint, which the Supreme Court has called “the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.” NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Peggy Little joins Mark to discuss Musk v. SEC.