Unwritten Law

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione and NCLA President Mark Chenoweth are joined by Andy Morris to discuss the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision rejecting the claim that the President has unilateral authority to impose, raise, or lower tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).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.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione is joined by NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Kara Rollins to discuss Sriptech v. SEC, a securities law case scheduled to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in April.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.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione mark the ten-year anniversary of what’s often called the Supreme Court’s “emergency docket”—sometimes labeled the “shadow docket”—and examine how it has reshaped constitutional litigation.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.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by Russ Ryan to discuss a recent oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit challenging the federal government’s student loan payment and interest pause.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.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione are joined by NCLA Of Counsel Margot Cleveland to discuss one of NCLA’s most consequential ongoing cases: Davidson v. Adkins, a constitutional challenge to the SEC’s Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT).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.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione discuss John’s recent oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Word v. Department of Energy.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.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione and NCLA President Mark Chenoweth discuss a major development in NCLA’s challenge to a federal rule requiring fishermen to pay for government monitors placed on their boats—despite no clear statutory authorization.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.

What happens when a state or local police officer violates someone’s constitutional rights—and courts say there’s no practical way to sue?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.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione break down the Supreme Court’s oral argument in Trump v. Cook, a case that puts presidential power, Federal Reserve independence, and the meaning of “for cause” removal squarely before the Court.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.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione are joined by Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel at NCLA, to discuss one of the most consequential cases in the organization’s docket: Davidson, et al. v. Atkins, a constitutional challenge to the SEC’s Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT).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 CATHow mass financial data collection implicates constitutional privacy protectionsThe dangers of delaying judicial review while unconstitutional conduct continuesWhy agencies cannot be allowed to “think about fixing” violations while rights are being infringedThis 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.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, John Vecchione and Mark Chenoweth unpack the latest chapter in Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, a case that sits at the crossroads of administrative power, statutory interpretation, and life after Chevron deference.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.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione are joined by Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel at NCLA, to discuss NCLA’s amicus brief in Media Matters v. Federal Trade Commission, currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.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.

Chevron deference may be gone—but is the Supreme Court quietly laying the groundwork for something even worse?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.

As the nation approaches the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the Chief Justice of the United States reflects on America’s founding principles in his annual Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary. But what does that report really say about the state of the Supreme Court today?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.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione dig into a major new essay by R.J. Pestritto, Senior Fellow at the Claremont Institute, titled “Government by the Unelected: How It Happened and How It Might Be Tamed.”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.

Why are the Little Sisters of the Poor still being dragged into court over the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate—years after the Supreme Court ruled in their favor?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.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione are joined by Andreia Trifoi to discuss NCLA’s constitutional challenge to the City of Marco Island’s use of automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) — a surveillance system that records and stores the movements of every driver entering or leaving the island.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.

In this follow-up episode of Unwritten Law, Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione continue their deep dive into the Supreme Court’s oral argument in Trump v. Slaughter, focusing on key issues that received less attention in Part I — but may prove just as consequential.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.

Just days after oral argument, Unwritten Law hosts Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione break down one of the most consequential separation-of-powers cases in decades: Trump v. Slaughter.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.

In this episode, Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione sit down with NCLA Litigation Counsel Casey Norman to break down a major regulatory win: stopping FERC’s sweeping “Duty of Candor” rule before it ever hit the books. The proposed rule would have allowed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to punish any speaker — from corporations to ordinary citizens — for any statement, email, or phone call the agency deemed “false,” “misleading,” or missing “material information,” with no mens rea requirement and no defined limits.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.