John shares firsthand insights from attending oral argument, where the Court considered whether the Constitution guarantees citizenship to all children born in the United States or whether limits may apply to the children of illegal immigrants and temporary visitors. The case stems from an executive order directing federal agencies to reinterpret the Citizenship Clause—raising both constitutional and administrative law questions.

The discussion explores the historical understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment, the role of allegiance and jurisdiction, and key precedents such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Mark and John also examine competing arguments presented at oral argument, including concerns about retroactivity, congressional authority, and the practical consequences of altering long-standing interpretations of citizenship.

The episode also highlights commentary from legal scholars, including an article by Philip Hamburger, and explains why the Court’s decision—expected later this term—could have major implications for immigration policy, constitutional law, and the separation of powers.

Philip Hamburger's article in Law & Liberty: Allegiance, Birthright, and Citizenship

https://lawliberty.org/allegiance-birthright-and-citizenship/

The case challenged a years-long effort in which State Department funds were routed through third-party organizations and technologies—such as the Global Disinformation Index and NewsGuard—to suppress and demonetize certain media outlets. According to the settlement, the government acknowledged that aspects of these activities violated the First Amendment and involved unlawful conduct.

The episode explains how the alleged “boomerang effect” allowed the government to work through foreign and private intermediaries to impact domestic speech, the investigative work that uncovered the scheme, and the discovery that revealed the scope of coordination across agencies, nonprofits, universities, and technology platforms.

Peggy and Margot walk through the key terms of the settlement, including restrictions on government coordination with censorship technologies, limits on grant funding tied to domestic speech, training and compliance requirements, and long-term oversight provisions designed to prevent similar conduct in the future.

The discussion also highlights the role of journalists, plaintiffs willing to challenge the government, and the court in bringing the case forward—and why the outcome may have significant implications for free speech, government accountability, and the limits of federal power.

The case began when a man riding a dirt bike on Bureau of Land Management land was charged with a criminal offense—not because Congress passed a law making his conduct a crime, but because a federal agency created the regulation and attached criminal penalties to it. NCLA filed an amicus brief supporting Supreme Court review, arguing that allowing agencies to define criminal conduct raises serious constitutional concerns.

The discussion explains the nondelegation doctrine, the “intelligible principle” test, and why criminal law raises special due process concerns when agencies—not Congress—decide what conduct can lead to fines or prison time. The episode also explores how modern courts interpret delegation differently than earlier courts and why this case could have major implications for the separation of powers.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione are joined by NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Peggy Little to discuss Wright v. Goldstein, a case challenging Massachusetts’ use of COVID contact-tracing technology that was allegedly installed automatically on Android phones without users’ knowledge or consent.

The lawsuit argued that the program violated the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and computer intrusion laws by forcing software onto private phones and collecting sensitive data, including location and health information. The case resulted in a settlement requiring the state to delete the data and agree not to use similar technology for five years.

This episode explains the case, the constitutional issues, and why the settlement could have nationwide implications for digital privacy and government surveillance.

They explain how the case began, the discovery battles that revealed government “back-channel” communications with social media companies, the preliminary injunction, the Supreme Court’s standing decision, and the consent decree that followed. They also discuss what the government agreed to in the settlement and what it could mean for free speech and government involvement with online platforms in the future.

This conversation offers a behind-the-scenes look at how the case unfolded over several years—and why its outcome could shape First Amendment law in the years ahead.

Judge Pauline Newman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has been barred from hearing new cases for years under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act—despite never being impeached and despite medical evaluations finding her fit to serve. The courts so far have refused to review the merits of her case, citing precedent that treats these actions as internal court administration.

The petition asks the Supreme Court to decide whether courts must be able to review actions that go beyond temporary administrative measures and effectively remove an Article III judge from the bench. The case raises major constitutional questions about judicial independence, separation of powers, and whether “court administration” can be used in a way that avoids judicial review altogether.

Mark, John, and Andy explain the legal issues, the procedural hurdles, and why the case is about more than one judge—it’s about whether there are limits on internal judicial power and whether federal courts must be open to hear constitutional claims.

The rule prohibits individuals who settle with the SEC from ever publicly denying the agency’s allegations—even if they believe those allegations are false. Peggy explains why the case presents a major First Amendment question involving prior restraint, viewpoint discrimination, and unconstitutional conditions.

The conversation also explores the real-world consequences of the rule: how it silences defendants, prevents journalists from reporting both sides of enforcement actions, distorts market information, and allows agencies to expand their power through settlements that most people cannot afford to fight.

The episode discusses key Supreme Court precedents, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and why this case could have major implications not just for the SEC, but for government settlement practices across the administrative state.

Geofence warrants allow law enforcement to obtain location data from companies like Google identifying every device within a specific area during a defined period of time—potentially sweeping in dozens or even hundreds of people with no connection to any crime. Andreia explains how these warrants work, why they often capture innocent bystanders, and how they were used in a bank robbery investigation in Virginia.

The conversation focuses on the constitutional question at the heart of the case: whether geofence warrants are modern-day general warrants, the very abuse that helped inspire the Fourth Amendment. The discussion also explores how the Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter v. United States applies to modern location tracking, the challenges courts face when adapting older doctrines to new technology, and the growing tension between privacy rights and expansive digital surveillance.

John and Andreia also examine the fractured opinions in the Fourth Circuit, the role of the good-faith exception, and why this case could shape the future of Fourth Amendment protections in the digital age.

The conversation focuses on the controversial “disparate impact” liability rule in housing law and HUD’s effort to rescind it. The rule allows liability for housing practices that unintentionally affect one group more than another—even when there is no intent to discriminate.

Caitlin explains how this doctrine emerged from a series of Supreme Court cases, beginning with Griggs v. Duke Power and later extending into the housing context through Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project. The discussion explores how disparate impact liability shifted discrimination law away from intentional conduct and toward statistical outcomes.

The episode also examines how agency interpretations and judicial deference helped expand this doctrine over time—and why recent Supreme Court decisions curtailing agency deference may put its legal foundations into question.

Mark, John, and Caitlin discuss the implications of HUD rescinding the rule, why private lawsuits could still continue under the statute, and what a broader reevaluation of disparate impact liability could mean for housing, employment, lending, and other areas of federal regulation.

The case, Choice Refrigerants v. EPA, challenges how the agency implemented Congress’s AIM Act, which created a cap-and-trade system to phase down certain refrigerants. According to the petition, Congress provided virtually no guidance on how market allowances should be distributed—leaving EPA with sweeping discretion to decide which companies would keep their market share and which would lose it.

Zhonette explains why this case presents a “clean vehicle” for the Supreme Court to revisit the nondelegation doctrine, which holds that Congress cannot hand over its legislative power to executive agencies without providing meaningful direction. The discussion explores the “intelligible principle” test, the D.C. Circuit’s reasoning, and why the Court may finally confront the limits of congressional delegation after nearly a century without striking down a statute on nondelegation grounds.

The episode also highlights the real-world stakes for small businesses like Choice Refrigerants, founded by entrepreneur Ken Ponder, whose patented refrigerant products were affected by EPA’s allocation decisions.

The conversation unpacks Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion, which relies on careful textual analysis to reaffirm that tariff authority belongs to Congress—not the Executive. John, Mark, and Andy explain why the statute’s language does not authorize revenue-raising measures, how the Constitution’s prohibition on export taxes reinforces that conclusion, and why decades of practice confirm that “regulating importation” does not mean imposing tariffs.

They also examine the dissents, including Justice Kavanaugh’s reliance on prior cases like Algonquin, the role of the Major Questions Doctrine, and why emergency powers do not justify bypassing Congress’s exclusive taxing authority. The episode closes with a broader discussion of separation of powers, the dangers of discretionary tariff regimes, and why this decision represents a major win for constitutional limits on executive power.

The case asks a critical question: must the Securities and Exchange Commission prove that investors suffered actual financial harm in order to obtain disgorgement in a civil enforcement action? John and Kara explain how recent Supreme Court decisions, including Kokesh and Liu, narrowed the SEC’s disgorgement authority while leaving this issue unresolved.

Mark and John explain what the emergency docket is, how it differs from merits decisions, and why its modern form is often traced to the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision to stay the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan. They discuss why emergency relief can be critical to preventing irreversible “fait accompli” outcomes when executive action races ahead of judicial review.

The conversation also explores debates sparked by critics of the emergency docket, the confusion it can create for lower courts, and whether decisions issued without full opinions should bind judges below. Along the way, Mark and John reflect on the legacy of Justice Antonin Scalia—whose final vote played a key role in the Clean Power Plan stay—and how his jurisprudence continues to influence debates over judicial power, originalism, and the proper limits of the administrative state.

The case, Mackinac Center for Public Policy v. U.S. Department of Education, focuses on the executive branch’s decision—under both the Trump and Biden administrations—to extend a moratorium on student loan payments and interest accrual long after Congress’s limited authorization expired. Russ explains why those unilateral extensions wiped away billions of dollars in interest without statutory authority.

The discussion zeroes in on standing: how nonprofit public-interest employers benefit from Congress’s Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, why administrative action that reduces outstanding student debt can unlawfully diminish that congressionally granted subsidy, and how Supreme Court precedent—most notably Clinton v. City of New York—supports the theory that loss of a subsidy is a concrete injury.

Mark, John, and Russ also unpack the judges’ questions at oral argument, the Sixth Circuit’s prior rulings, and why this case could clarify when organizations may challenge executive actions that override Congress’s spending decisions.

The CAT requires broker-dealers to collect and transmit detailed data on virtually every stock trade in the United States, creating a massive government-accessible database of Americans’ financial activity. Margot explains why recent changes announced by the SEC—such as removing names but retaining identifying numbers—do not cure the Fourth Amendment problem, and why suspicionless, warrantless searches of stock-trading data resemble the general warrants the Constitution was designed to forbid.

The episode also examines the SEC’s repeated requests for delays while the program continues to operate, the lack of congressional authorization or appropriation for CAT, related rulings from the Eleventh Circuit, and the broader dangers of mass financial surveillance for privacy, free association, and constitutional limits on agency power.

Bill Word and David Daquin both own a dishwasher and a washing machine that they want to replace. The U.S. Department of Energy has imposed regulations in 2012 and 2024 illegally limiting how much water dishwashers and washing machines can use. The appliances Word and Daquin want to buy use more water than those regulations allow. But under the amended Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the Department of Energy can only regulate water use in “faucets, showerheads, water closets and urinals”.

The conversation also explores a key procedural question: where regulated parties can seek meaningful relief when an agency repeatedly issues unlawful rules, and whether district courts must be able to issue injunctions to stop ultra vires agency action. Along the way, Mark and John reflect on the Fifth Circuit’s prior rulings, post-Loper Bright limits on agency power, and why congressional action—not bureaucratic improvisation—is the proper way to regulate.

After a district court upheld the rule using a theory that conflicts with the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright, NCLA appealed to the First Circuit. Now, seven separate amicus briefs—from across the legal and ideological spectrum—have weighed in, each highlighting a different flaw in the district court’s analysis.

John and Mark walk through the most compelling arguments from the amici, including post-Loper Bright de novo review, the misuse of “necessary and appropriate” authority, clear-statement rules, the Major Questions Doctrine, constitutional limits on agency power, and why reviving Chevron-era reasoning under new labels is not permissible.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by Casey Norman to discuss Mohamud v. Weyker (No. 25-760), now at the U.S. Supreme Court.

NCLA’s amicus brief explains that multiple courts have recognized Officer Heather Weyker (a St. Paul police officer) abused her authority by fabricating allegations against Hamdi A. Mohamud and at least 30 other people—conduct the brief describes as “framing” that led to Mohamud’s incarceration for over two years. Yet the Eighth Circuit held Mohamud cannot sue Weyker under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Weyker was also cross-deputized for a federal task force—treating the conduct as federal in nature and shutting the courthouse door.

The episode also explains why this accountability gap is especially dangerous after Egbert v. Boule, which largely eliminated Bivens remedies for most plaintiffs—making § 1983 often the only viable path for damages when cross-deputized officers violate constitutional rights.

The discussion explores why the Justices appeared unusually skeptical of the government’s position, how the case arrived on the emergency docket, and whether a president must provide notice or a hearing before removing a Federal Reserve governor. Mark and John examine the distinction between the Fed’s interest-rate authority and its regulatory power, debate whether pre-appointment conduct can justify removal, and unpack the broader separation-of-powers implications.

If the Court limits the president here, does it invite a direct constitutional challenge to “for cause” protections? And what does this case signal about how the Court views executive control over independent agencies? A lively, substantive conversation about one of the most surprising Supreme Court arguments of the term.

The CAT is a massive nationwide database that collects and stores every stock trade made by every American investor, without suspicion, clear statutory authorization, or congressional appropriation. Peggy explains why this dragnet surveillance raises serious Fourth and Fifth Amendment concerns, threatens the security of Americans’ financial data, and unlawfully shifts billions of dollars in costs onto investors.

The discussion covers:

• Why the SEC lacks statutory authority to create and operate the CAT
• How mass financial data collection implicates constitutional privacy protections
• The dangers of delaying judicial review while unconstitutional conduct continues
• Why agencies cannot be allowed to “think about fixing” violations while rights are being infringed

This episode explains why Davidson, et al. v. Atkins is not just about securities regulation, but about the constitutional limits of agency power — and why courts must intervene.

The conversation focuses on whether federal agencies can require regulated parties — here, commercial fishermen — to pay for government-mandated monitors placed on their boats, even when Congress never clearly authorized those costs. John explains why a Rhode Island district court relied on a so-called “default norm” to uphold the rule, and why that reasoning conflicts with the Supreme Court’s rejection of Chevron in Loper Bright.

Mark and John walk through the Magnuson-Stevens Act, highlighting where Congress explicitly authorized industry-funded observers — and where it did not. They also explore the constitutional stakes: who decides who pays, why funding power belongs to Congress, and what happens when agencies effectively fund themselves through regulation.

The episode offers a clear look at how unelected bureaucrats expand power, why statutory text still matters, and what this case could mean for administrative law after Chevron.

The conversation focuses on the FTC’s use of civil investigative demands (CIDs) and a fundamental constitutional question: must individuals and organizations have access to an independent court before complying with sweeping agency demands? Peggy explains why allowing agencies to issue broad investigative orders without meaningful judicial review threatens First Amendment rights of speech and association.

Drawing on Supreme Court precedents including NAACP v. Alabama, Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, Axon Enterprise v. FTC, and SEC v. Jarkesy, the episode examines why constitutional challenges cannot be forced through agency-controlled processes. The hosts also discuss the dangers of agencies “holding the keys to the courthouse,” the structural bias built into self-review, and how repeated investigative demands can be used to pressure or dismantle organizations without ever filing charges.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione examine a recent Supreme Court decision that could dramatically reshape administrative law. Drawing on analysis by Will Yeatman, they discuss how the Court’s handling of VanDerStok risks giving agencies a powerful new shield by treating challenges to regulations as “facial” attacks—making them nearly impossible to win.

The conversation dives into why this approach departs from traditional administrative-law principles, how lower courts may use it to avoid meaningful judicial review, and why this decision could become a dangerous tool for future administrations—regardless of political party.

If you care about limits on bureaucratic power, the future of post-Chevron litigation, or the proper role of courts in reviewing agency action, this episode explains why VanDerStok is an issue worth watching closely.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione unpack Chief Justice Roberts’s historical reflections, his views on the Declaration of Independence, and what judicial independence truly means in modern constitutional law. They explore whether the Declaration is merely “ancillary” or something closer to law itself—and why that debate matters.

The discussion also turns to a persistent frustration: the Supreme Court’s shrinking docket. With filings down and opinions limited, Mark and John ask whether the Court is failing to address critical legal questions that affect Americans’ daily lives—and what consequences follow when major precedents are left to “fester” in the lower courts.

https://dc.claremont.org/government-by-the-unelected-how-it-happened-and-how-it-might-be-tamed/

The discussion traces the intellectual and legal origins of the modern administrative state — from Progressive-era theory and Woodrow Wilson, through the New Deal, the rise of Chevron deference, and decades of judicial decisions that insulated federal agencies from democratic control. Mark and John explain how ideas developed in academia slowly reshaped constitutional doctrine, allowing unelected bureaucrats to accumulate legislative, executive, and judicial power.

The episode also examines how recent Supreme Court decisions — including Loper Bright, Corner Post, Jarkesy, and ongoing removal-power cases — may signal a turning point. Together, these cases suggest a rebalancing of constitutional authority: less deference to agencies, greater accountability to the President, and renewed pressure on Congress to legislate rather than delegate.

This conversation offers a clear, accessible explanation of how we got here, why the administrative state became untethered from the Constitution, and what it will take to restore democratic accountability.

On this episode of Unwritten Law, Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione are joined by NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Andy Morris to discuss a newly filed amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Pennsylvania & New Jersey v. Trump. The case challenges religious exemptions that protect the Little Sisters, Catholic nuns who object to being forced to provide contraception coverage.

The conversation explores how federal agencies imposed the mandate without clear congressional authorization, why Pennsylvania and New Jersey are suing to eliminate long-standing religious exemptions, and how the case exposes serious constitutional problems—including lack of standing, agency overreach, and violations of the nondelegation doctrine.

At its core, this episode explains why vague laws and unchecked bureaucratic power threaten religious liberty and the separation of powers—and why courts should put an end to litigation that never should have continued.

Unwritten Law examines how unwritten rules, agency actions, and judicial shortcuts quietly reshape the law—often without the consent of the governed.

Because Marco Island has only three bridges, residents are photographed and tracked multiple times a day, with their location data retained for years and potentially shared with other agencies or private companies. The hosts explain why this dragnet surveillance goes far beyond ordinary police observation and raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns.

This episode explores how emerging surveillance technology is testing the limits of constitutional privacy — and why courts must confront these questions before mass tracking becomes the norm.

The conversation explores whether there is any meaningful constitutional distinction between criminal and civil enforcement, and why several justices appeared skeptical of claims that civil enforcement power is somehow “less executive.” The hosts explain why allowing independent agencies like the FTC and SEC to prosecute their own civil cases — outside the Department of Justice — raises serious accountability and separation-of-powers concerns.

At stake is Humphrey’s Executor, the 1935 Supreme Court decision that allowed Congress to insulate powerful federal regulators from presidential control. If overturned, the ruling could fundamentally reshape the modern administrative state.

Mark and John walk through the justices’ questions, the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments on both sides, and why several members of the Court appear ready to rethink nearly a century of doctrine.

This episode offers a clear, candid look at how the Court may redraw the constitutional boundaries of executive power — and what that means for self-government in America.

Casey walks through why this vague, overbroad rule was a First Amendment disaster waiting to happen; how it risked chilling public debate on energy and environmental policy; and how NCLA’s detailed comments helped persuade FERC to scrap the rule entirely. The team also explores how the proposal fit into a broader pattern of government attempts to police “truth,” and why regulatory speech controls should worry everyone.

It’s a rare victory in the world of administrative rulemaking — and a reminder that sometimes the best lawsuit is the one you never have to file.

Casey explains the nondelegation challenge, the vagueness problem, the strange double standard with hang gliding, and why a federal judge in Houston is pressing the government to rethink its outdated criminal rules. If you care about the Constitution, criminal law, or just enjoy wild outdoor sports, this episode has something for you.

They walk through the key amicus briefs, Professor Caleb Nelson’s arguments, and Philip Hamburger’s response in the Yale Journal on Regulation emphasizing the Constitution’s unitary executive structure. The trio also discuss the foreign-policy powers exercised by modern independent agencies and why the Court may finally be ready to overturn Humphrey’s Executor. A deep dive into one of the most important separation-of-powers cases of the term.

They discuss the tension between staging debates for show versus digging into substantive legal questions, the increasing presence of younger speakers, the lack of deep dives on topics like tariffs and administrative overreach, and the overall feel of the event’s intellectual energy. Mark and John also highlight memorable moments, including the conversation with Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh, Steve Bradbury’s Department of Transportation panel, and a compelling discussion on free speech rights for non-citizens.

A mix of recap, critique, and commentary, this episode gives listeners an insider’s view of how the conservative legal movement’s biggest annual gathering is evolving in 2025.

A Texas judge—currently presiding over a live case—has written three novels featuring characters bearing striking resemblance of herself and on one of the actual litigants before her. The fictional version of the real-life businessman is cast as a villain.

The case is Dondero v. Jernigan, raising fundamental questions about impartiality.

Russ walks through the surreal facts and NCLA’s concise but impactful amicus brief urging the Court to fix the problem.

This is an episode you do not want to miss.

John and Andy share what they saw in the courtroom, how the justices responded, and why this case could redefine the limits of executive authority. From Justice Kagan’s sharp textual questions to Justice Kavanaugh’s deference to presidential power, the episode captures the day’s biggest moments — and what they reveal about the future of constitutional checks and balances.

From Roosevelt’s bank closures to Trump’s trade wars, this episode explores why the Constitution clearly puts tariff authority in Congress’s hands — not the Oval Office.

A must-listen for anyone passionate about originalism, constitutional history, and the ongoing effort to keep the meaning of the Constitution alive and clear.

Andreia explains NCLA’s amicus brief, which argues that the Fourth Circuit’s reading of Title IX violates the Constitution’s Spending Clause and the clear statement rule, by imposing conditions Congress never enacted. The discussion unpacks what’s at stake for state sovereignty, federal funding, and the future of women’s athletics.

👉 Read the Wall Street Journal article here: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/chief-justice-john-roberts-20-years-supreme-court-bb977114

Read the full Daily Wire article here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-state-department-puts-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-biden-era-censorship-framework

They walk through the 120-day interim limit, the “PAS officer” and 90-day service requirements, and the debate over whether a U.S. Attorney is a principal or inferior officer under the Appointments Clause—including the thorny question of courts appointing executive officials.

The discussion covers why the indictments weren’t tossed, what an appeal to the Third Circuit could look like, how Senate confirmation gridlock fuels these fights, and the broader stakes for separation of powers, prosecutorial accountability, and constitutional governance.

The discussion also covers the opinion’s treatment of attorney sanctions, what could happen on further appeal, and what this all means for due process, economic liberty, and doing business in New York—especially under the capacious terms of New York Executive Law § 63(12).

The case challenges a Minnesota college’s decision to fire a professor who refused to comply with COVID-19 mandates—and openly explained his objections to students.

The conversation explores how pandemic-era policies collided with the First Amendment, why the district court dismissed the case, and what the outcome could mean for academic freedom, free speech, and constitutional governance nationwide.

Congress gave EPA free rein to design a cap-and-trade scheme for hydrofluorocarbons—without clear limits. The court sidestepped the constitutional nondelegation problem by reinterpreting the statute to match past laws, even though EPA didn’t follow that approach.

We explore why this “constitutional avoidance” tactic raises serious rule-of-law concerns, and what it means in the post-Loper Bright world.

The 11th Circuit agreed with the American Securities Association and Citadel that the SEC's attempt to impose multi-billion-dollar fees on broker-dealers was arbitrary, capricious, and totally untethered from Congressional authorization.

Mark and John break down how this massive Fourth Amendment–invading program was never passed by Congress, never properly funded, and yet was still collecting every American investor’s stock transaction.

They also discuss NCLA’s companion case, Davidson v. SEC, which challenges the CAT’s very existence—and what this win means for reining in agency power, restoring constitutional order, and stopping self-funded surveillance regimes.

Keywords: SEC surveillance, Consolidated Audit Trail, CAT, Davidson v. SEC, Fourth Amendment, administrative state, unlawful taxation, 11th Circuit opinion, American Securities Association, Citadel, pro-liberty legal podcast

The discussion dives into the legacy of the Yoshida case, the limits of executive power in trade policy, and why post-Loper Bright courts may be less willing to rubber-stamp administrative justifications. With tariffs affecting businesses and consumers nationwide, this episode explores how the decision could redefine the balance of power between Congress and the President in trade law.

Key topics: Presidential trade authority, IEEPA, tariffs, V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Yoshida precedent, executive power limits, Federal Circuit oral arguments, and post-Loper Bright administrative law.

Mark and John explore how the Biden administration’s vague processes, lack of transparency, and use of mechanical signature tools risk undermining the original meaning of Article II’s pardon clause. With real consequences for justice, separation of powers, and presidential accountability, this episode shows how even the quietest violations of written law can threaten the foundations of liberty.

Key topics: Presidential pardons, constitutional nondelegation, separation of powers, Biden administration, Article II, accountability, Philip Hamburger, and administrative state.

What happens when the President fires commissioners from an “independent” agency—and lower courts try to put them back in power? The hosts unpack the chaos at the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the unresolved fate of Humphrey’s Executor, and the broader implications for executive authority, judicial remedies, and agency structure. From district court blunders to Justice Kagan’s warning and Justice Kavanaugh’s push for fast-track review, this episode explores how the Court is reshaping the balance of power in Washington—one emergency docket at a time.

Stay tuned to learn why remedies matter, why norms are collapsing, and how bureaucrats refusing to step down might provoke the very precedent that ends their independence.

The case tests how lower courts apply the Supreme Court’s landmark Jarkesy ruling, which emphasized the importance of jury trials and Article III courts for administrative adjudications.

Mark and John explore why the panel sided with agency adjudication despite the Supreme Court’s warnings, discuss Judge Bibas’s powerful concurrence highlighting ongoing constitutional concerns, and analyze the troubling reliance on the expansive "public rights" doctrine. Will this decision prompt the Supreme Court to finally clarify—and potentially curb—the administrative state's adjudicative power?

Key topics: Jarkesy v. SEC, administrative adjudication, jury trial rights, Article III courts, public rights doctrine, nondelegation doctrine, Axalta v. FAA, and separation of powers.

They explore how the SEC created expansive insider-trading rules without explicit congressional authorization—rules that are now putting defendants at risk of criminal penalties. The team examines the district court’s reliance on prior Chevron-era precedent, debates the shaky application of statutory stare decisis in criminal contexts, and discusses why the rule of lenity and due process concerns might ultimately force appellate courts to rethink how administrative crimes are prosecuted post-Loper Bright.

Key topics: Insider trading laws, administrative crimes, Chevron deference, statutory stare decisis, rule of lenity, Securities and Exchange Commission, Loper Bright case implications, and judicial accountability.

They analyze the disappointing outcome in the closely watched Relentless case, where fishermen still face mandatory fees for onboard government observers—even after Chevron deference was overturned.

Professor Bolinder explains why the court’s decision ignored critical textual arguments, conflated statutory interpretation with deferential review, and risked perpetuating the very administrative power the Supreme Court sought to curb. The group also discusses new settlement negotiations in the related Loper Bright litigation and its implications for future administrative law battles.

Key topics: Administrative state, Chevron deference, statutory interpretation, APA review standards, fishing regulations, and Supreme Court oversight of agency power.

The case challenged the appointments process of the HHS’s U.S. Preventive Services Task Force—a panel deciding which preventive healthcare services insurers must provide without cost. Josh explains why the ruling, which upheld these appointments, raises critical concerns about political accountability and constitutional limits on agency power.

Together they explore implications for the Appointments Clause, agency independence, and the broader separation-of-powers battle playing out at the Supreme Court.

Key topics: Appointments Clause, administrative law, Obamacare, independent agencies, and separation of powers.

Zhonette explains the controversial ruling that allows the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to set fees—arguably taxes—without explicit congressional limits. They discuss the implications of the Court’s continued adherence to the "intelligible principle" test, the unresolved confusion between fees and taxes, and the concerning delegation of rate-setting power to private entities. John and Zhonette explore why this ruling may have broader implications for administrative power, taxation, and congressional accountability.

Key topics: Non-delegation doctrine, intelligible principle test, fee vs. tax debate, FCC authority, and recent Supreme Court rulings on administrative overstep.

Key topics: Humphrey’s Executor, independent agencies, unitary executive, CPSC litigation, separation of powers, and recent administrative-law upheavals.

Key topics include the discretionary-function exception, the intentional-tort proviso, qualified immunity, and the critical role the FTCA plays in checking executive branch abuses.

Topics include: Chevron deference, administrative law reform, judicial independence, regulatory accountability, and the latest developments in major administrative law cases.

The case centers on Idil Issak, a cultural anthropology PhD student barred from conducting dissertation research on domestic worker abuse in the UAE—research purely involving interviews and speech.

Margot explains how IRBs, created to prevent unethical medical experiments, have morphed into unconstitutional gatekeepers for academic speech. They dive into why this case matters beyond Tennessee, highlighting the chilling effects these boards have nationwide on scholars who dare to investigate sensitive topics without official approval.

The conversation also covers NCLA’s ongoing efforts to rein in similar private regulators and celebrates a recent victory in the First Circuit involving Father Lemelson and the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Emily shares how abrupt, emergency-based tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) have harmed her business, creating massive uncertainty and escalating costs overnight.

Andy explains why NCLA argues these tariffs are unlawful—exceeding executive power and bypassing Congress’s established trade laws. Together, they explore the real-world impact on American entrepreneurs, the dubious national-security justifications provided by the government, and what's next as the fight moves forward in court.

The Senate is preparing to vote on whether to overturn California’s EPA waiver, which allows the state to impose stricter vehicle emissions standards than the federal government. Mark and John break down why this obscure but powerful legislative tool matters, how California’s rules affect carmakers and consumers nationwide, and why this CRA vote could set up a legal showdown with sweeping consequences.

They also discuss how a little-known clause banning “substantially similar” regulations could haunt future agency actions—and why this case might finally test that theory in court.

John reports from inside the courtroom, where justices wrestled with the limits of judicial power, class actions, and whether a single district court can block federal policies across all 50 states.

The conversation explores historical precedent, state standing, class certification workarounds, and why the Court may be looking for a narrow path forward. With sharp analysis, this episode reveals how one obscure procedural tool could reshape constitutional litigation.

Andy explains why these so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs are constitutionally suspect, how the government is trying to shift the case to a specialized trade court, and why that move would avoid the core legal question: Can the president sidestep Congress and unilaterally tax imports using emergency powers?

The episode also introduces four new small business plaintiffs, examines the devastating impact of tariff uncertainty, and calls out the myth that foreign countries—not American importers—are footing the bill.

Can a president sidestep Congress and unilaterally raise tariffs? Andy explains why these tariffs are more than economic policy—they’re a constitutional violation of Congress’s exclusive power over taxation.

Tune in to hear how NCLA is fighting for small business owners, why jurisdiction matters, and what makes this case one of the most important challenges to executive overreach this year.

Filed on behalf of small business owner Emily Ley, this is the first and only case taking on President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on goods from China. The statute lets presidents freeze assets or embargo items during a real emergency—but it doesn’t allow tariffs. And it certainly doesn’t authorize the executive branch to sidestep Congress’s clear rules on trade.

John explains why this case isn’t just about tariffs—it’s about constitutional limits on executive power, strategic legal choices, and the consequences of letting presidents unilaterally tax Americans under the guise of emergencies.

What began as a program to help rural and low-income Americans access phone service has morphed into a $10 billion-a-year operation—largely run by a private entity (USAC) the FCC created without congressional authorization. Zhonette breaks down the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, the thorny issues of nondelegation and “taxation by bureaucracy,” and how this case could reshape how much power agencies have to raise and spend money.

First, they tackle the Supreme Court’s decision in Lackey v. Stinnie, which denied attorney’s fees to plaintiffs who clearly forced a change in state policy—simply because the government mooted the case before final judgment. Then, they unpack President Trump’s new executive order instructing agencies to demand financial bonds from plaintiffs seeking injunctions—adding serious risk to suing the federal government, even in civil liberties cases.

This obscure-sounding bureaucracy wields outsized power, launching secretive investigations that can derail careers with zero presidential oversight or Senate confirmation. The kicker? Even the President can’t rein them in. Mark and John explain why CIGIE violates the Constitution’s separation of powers and how this self-perpetuating entity operates outside meaningful checks and balances.

The case sparked a fierce debate over whether the president can remove executive officials at will or if statutory “for-cause” protections limit his authority. The team unpacks Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s controversial injunction, the D.C. Circuit’s swift reversal, and why Supreme Court precedent—Seila Law and Collins—made this a clear win for Trump.

The lawsuit questions whether government agencies can force employees to take a non-sterilizing vaccine—one that does not stop transmission—under the long-misinterpreted Jacobson v. Massachusetts precedent. The team unpacks why Jacobson doesn’t justify rubber-stamping mandates, how courts have misapplied it for decades, and what this case could mean for future public health policies.

Sheng explains how the IRS demanded Coinbase hand over customer data—without any evidence of wrongdoing—and why the case could reshape the Fourth Amendment’s “third-party doctrine.” The team also covers a major legal victory in the fight against Biden’s illegal student loan forgiveness plan and the chaos it has created for borrowers.

The lawsuit exposes a bigger issue: how unelected bureaucrats create criminal laws without congressional approval. From vague regulations to arbitrary enforcement, this case isn’t just about adventure sports—it’s about stopping executive agencies from making up the rules as they go.

Jenin breaks down how a skier and Instagram influencer ended up facing federal charges—and why two Tenth Circuit judges think the Supreme Court needs to revisit its precedent.

The team also dives into the latest case challenging government surveillance of fishermen in Washington State.

What happens next in the fight against bureaucratic overreach? How will courts interpret statutes now that agencies can’t dictate the meaning? Mark and John unpack the latest legal developments, preview key cases ahead, and explain why unwritten laws affect every American.