New Civil Liberties Alliance

Robert Wright will admit he's not much of a techie, but he knows that by law he has the right to reject an App getting downloaded on his Android smartphone. Mr. Wright along with millions of others like him were shocked to learn the Massachusetts Department of Public Health worked with Google to auto-install spyware on the smartphones of more than one million unknowing Commonwealth residents, without their knowledge or consent, in a misguided effort to combat Covid-19. So he is suing them.

NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Russ Ryan joins Newsmax to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision striking down the Biden Administration's half-trillion dollar student loan debt cancellation plan.

Brianne Dressen experienced devastating neurological symptoms after receiving the Covid vaccine. When she tried to create an online support group for those who had similar reactions to the vaccine, Facebook quickly shut it down. NCLA Litigation Counsel Casey Norman and NCLA client Ernest Ramirez join the Right on Point podcast to discuss NCLA's most recent lawsuit against government censorship, Dressen v. Flaherty.

NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione and NCLA client Mark Changizi, plaintiff in Changizi v. HHS, join TBN's Centerpoint to break down the dark truth about government censorship.

Biden Administration officials, including some within the Department of Health and Human Services, have violated the First Amendment by directing social media companies to censor viewpoints that conflict with the government’s Covid-19 messaging. NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione joins Philadelphia's Morning Answer to discuss updates in one of NCLA's major First Amendment lawsuits, Changizi v. HHS.

NCLA Litigation Counsel Sheng Li and NCLA client Mark Changizi join Newsmax to discuss Changizi v. HHS, NCLA's case against government-directed social media censorship. Website: https://nclalegal.org Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NewCivilLibertiesAlliance Twitter: https://twitter.com/NCLAlegal LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ncla-legal/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nclalegal/

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has dismissed dozens of enforcement cases, including two involving current NCLA clients (Michelle Cochran, Marian Young) and one of a former client (Christopher Gibson). The agency revealed on June 2, 2023, that members of its enforcement staff had gained illicit access to confidential adjudicative documents and downloaded them in far more cases than originally reported, exposing rot in a hopelessly compromised in-house adjudication regime. NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Peggy Little joins The Ross Kaminsky Show to discuss SEC's dismissals and what's next for NCLA's recent Supreme Court case, SEC v. Cochran.

Safety Advocates and Hobby Industry Groups Challenge CPSC’s Unlawful, Irrational Magnet Ban The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has approved a draconian new “magnet safety standard” for non-toy products, which broadly bans high-powered hobby magnets for adults. CPSC relied on flawed studies and failed, contrary to the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), to properly account for magnets’ benefits or the costs of removing them from the market. More fundamentally, CPSC is unconstitutionally structured, because it is an independent agency exercising executive power outside the President’s control. NCLA has filed an opening brief in Magnetsafety.org, et al. v. CPSC, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to vacate the magnet ban for a second time—this time because it was promulgated in violation of CPSA provisions by an unconstitutionally structured agency. Mark interviews NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Greg Dolin on NCLA’s new magnet ban lawsuit. Harvard and UNC Face Racial Discrimination Challenge at SCOTUS Students for Fair Admissions, led by long-time affirmative action critic Edward Blum, has sued both Harvard and UNC, and asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule its prior decisions and hold that the consideration of race as part of a holistic college admissions process in order to achieve a diverse student body violates the Equal Protection Clause. Vec interviews President Devon Westhill of the Center for Equal Opportunity on the upcoming Supreme Court cases, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC.

Will Chevron Deference Be Overturned? The U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in Loper Bright Enterprises, et al. v. Raimondo, et al. and agreed to reconsider Chevron v. NRDC, which instructs courts to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous law. NCLA filed an amicus brief in support of Loper Bright Enterprises’ petition for a writ of certiorari on behalf of similarly situated clients, Relentless Inc., Huntress Inc., and Seafreeze Fleet LLC, corporations operating in the herring fishery off the coast of New England. NCLA represents amici as parties in Relentless Inc., et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, et al. Vec comments on the Loper Bright cert grant and the question of whether Chevron deference will be overturned by the Supreme Court. The NYTimes Attack on Chief Justice Roberts U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. informed the Senate Judiciary Committee in a recent letter that he was declining its invitation to testify about ethics rules for the Supreme Court. The New York Times has since then attacked Chief Justice Roberts, claiming that he is unfit to serve on the judiciary. Mark defends Chief Justice Roberts from the New York Times attack for declining to testify before Congress on SCOTUS ethics.

NCLA hosts a virtual press conference to cover the recent major win for charter boat fishermen across the Gulf of Mexico and how this decision could impact a similar case currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, Loper Bright Enterprises, et al. v. Gina Raimondo, et al. WHO: Captain Allen Walburn of A&B Charters, NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel John J. Vecchione, and Greg Grimsal of Gordon Arata Montgomery Barnett take questions from reporters and provide analysis on the impact of this ruling. WHAT: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit set aside a controversial Final Rule, which required 24-hour GPS tracking of recreational charter boat fishing vessels and reporting of confidential economic data. NCLA represents more than 1,300 federally permitted charter boat owners in the class-action lawsuit, Mexican Gulf Fishing Company v. U.S. Department of Commerce. As Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote in her decision, “in promulgating this regulation, the Government committed multiple independent Administrative Procedure Act violations, and very likely violated the Fourth Amendment.” The discussion also covers the upcoming mandate being issued, whether or not the Government will file a cert petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, and how this decision might affect another future Supreme Court fish case, Loper Bright Enterprises, et al. v. Gina Raimondo, et al., a closely watched suit in which SCOTUS will decide a challenge over how courts assess federal rule-making.

After seven years of an uphill battle challenging the adjudicatory process at the Securities and Exchange Commission, Michelle Cochran's backbreaking journey has paid off. In a historic and unanimous Supreme Court victory in Axon v. FTC consolidated with SEC v. Cochran, the highest court in the land declared earlier this month that Michelle can, indeed, challenge the constitutionality of the agency's adjudicatory process (and even the constitutionality of the agency itself) before undergoing yet another administrative adjudication. As Justice Gorsuch remarked after describing the long and painful path taken by NCLA's client to get to this point: "This is what a win looks like." But now what? NCLA President and General Counsel Mark Chenoweth moderates a discussion with our expert panelists: Greg Garre, partner at Latham & Watkins, and Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel at NCLA, to answer that very question.

In an historic ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court this morning held that Texas Accountant Michelle Cochran has the right to challenge the constitutionality of her Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) removal protections in federal court before undergoing an administrative adjudication. Writing unanimously for the Court, Justice Kagan’s opinion stated, “The statutory review schemes set out in the Securities Exchange Act and Federal Trade Commission Act do not displace a district court’s federal-question jurisdiction over claims challenging as uncon­stitutional the structure or existence of the SEC or FTC.” “The ordinary statutory review scheme,” she wrote, “does not preclude a district court from entertaining these extraordinary claims.” The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group, which represents Ms. Cochran in Securities and Exchange Commission, et al. v. Michelle Cochran, commends the court for a decision that will allow our client to plead her case before a real Article III federal court rather than be subjected to an endless series of unlawful agency hearings.

A new animated video released by the New Civil Liberties Alliance examines the impact of SEC’s Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) and in-house administrative proceedings. SEC’s ALJs wield extensive powers, which include, but are not limited to, supervising discovery; issuing, revoking, or modifying subpoenas; deciding motions; ruling on the admissibility of evidence; administering oaths; hearing and examining witnesses; and imposing severe sanctions. The targets of SEC administrative enforcement proceedings do not have the rights available to defendants in civil court proceedings. They lack rights to pretrial discovery, protections of evidentiary rules, and access to a jury trial. Given that SEC employees play judge, jury, and prosecutor, it is hardly surprising that the agency wins the vast majority of the cases it brings through administrative proceedings.

Just because you work in a regulated industry doesn't mean the government can watch you all the time. NCLA successfully challenged an unlawful and unconstitutional regulation by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which required 24-hour GPS tracking of recreational charter boat fishing vessels and reporting of confidential economic data. Essentially, this federal agency was forcing all charter boat captains to wear ankle monitors like convicted criminals, despite not having done anything wrong! Thankfully, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that NMFS violated the Administrative Procedure Act and, likely, the Fourth Amendment. But is the case over? Will NMFS simply reissue a substantively similar surveillance rule? How can we stop the federal government from spying on us with a massive regime of suspicion-less administrative search? NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione moderates a panel discussion with Greg Grimsal, member of GAMB (Gordon Arata Montgomery Barnett), and Robert Alt, President and CEO of The Buckeye Institute, who submitted an amicus brief in support of the successful challenge. Website: nclalegal.org Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NewCivilLibertiesAlliance Twitter: https://twitter.com/NCLAlegal LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ncla-legal/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nclalegal/

Eric Waldo - Senior Advisor to the Surgeon General of the United States Lawsuit: State of Missouri ex rel. Schmitt, et al. v. Biden, et al. This case paints a comprehensive picture of an administration and federal officials engaging in a lawless, expansive censorship campaign that employed illicit tactics—from pressure and coercion to collusion and coordination—on social media companies to suppress the airing of disfavored perspectives on Covid-19 and other topics. Deposition date: 12/22/22 For more information, visit https://nclalegal.org/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-schmitt-et-al-v-biden-et-al/

Brian Scully - Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Lawsuit: State of Missouri ex rel. Schmitt, et al. v. Biden, et al. This case paints a comprehensive picture of an administration and federal officials engaging in a lawless, expansive censorship campaign that employed illicit tactics—from pressure and coercion to collusion and coordination—on social media companies to suppress the airing of disfavored perspectives on Covid-19 and other topics. Deposition date: 1/12/23 For more information, visit https://nclalegal.org/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-schmitt-et-al-v-biden-et-al/

Daniel Kimmage - Acting Coordinator of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center Lawsuit: State of Missouri ex rel. Schmitt, et al. v. Biden, et al. This case paints a comprehensive picture of an administration and federal officials engaging in a lawless, expansive censorship campaign that employed illicit tactics—from pressure and coercion to collusion and coordination—on social media companies to suppress the airing of disfavored perspectives on Covid-19 and other topics. Deposition date: 11/10/22 The transcript of the deposition can be found here: https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Doc.-144-4-Exhibit-C-Kimmage.pdf For more information, visit https://nclalegal.org/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-schmitt-et-al-v-biden-et-al/

Dr. Anthony Fauci - NIAID Director and White House Chief Medical Advisor Lawsuit: State of Missouri ex rel. Schmitt, et al. v. Biden, et al. This case paints a comprehensive picture of an administration and federal officials engaging in a lawless, expansive censorship campaign that employed illicit tactics—from pressure and coercion to collusion and coordination—on social media companies to suppress the airing of disfavored perspectives on Covid-19 and other topics. Deposition date: 11/23/22 The transcript of the deposition can be found here: https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/FauciDeposition.pdf For more information, visit https://nclalegal.org/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-schmitt-et-al-v-biden-et-al/

Carol Crawford - CDC Chief of the Digital Media Branch Lawsuit: State of Missouri ex rel. Schmitt, et al. v. Biden, et al. This case paints a comprehensive picture of an administration and federal officials engaging in a lawless, expansive censorship campaign that employed illicit tactics—from pressure and coercion to collusion and coordination—on social media companies to suppress the airing of disfavored perspectives on Covid-19 and other topics. Deposition date: 11/15/22 The transcript of the deposition can be found here: https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Crawford-Deposition-Redacted.pdf For more information, visit https://nclalegal.org/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-schmitt-et-al-v-biden-et-al/

Elvis Chan - FBI Supervisory Special Agent Lawsuit: State of Missouri ex rel. Schmitt, et al. v. Biden, et al. This case paints a comprehensive picture of an administration and federal officials engaging in a lawless, expansive censorship campaign that employed illicit tactics—from pressure and coercion to collusion and coordination—on social media companies to suppress the airing of disfavored perspectives on Covid-19 and other topics. Deposition date: 11/29/22 The transcript of the deposition can be found here: https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Doc.-144-2-Exhibit-A-Chan.pdf For more information, visit https://nclalegal.org/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-schmitt-et-al-v-biden-et-al/

SCOTUS Hears Oral Argument in Student Loan Lawsuits This week the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two major cases challenging President Biden’s student loan debt cancellation plan. Mark and Vec discuss oral argument in Department of Education v. Brown & Biden v. Nebraska.

NCLA President and General Counsel Mark Chenoweth joins The Federalist Society for a breakdown of recent U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in two major cases challenging Biden's student loan debt cancellation, Department of Education v. Brown and Biden v. Nebraska.

Fifth Circuit Tosses Back Rule Trying to Track Charter Boats Without a Warrant In a landmark win for charter boat fishermen across the Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has set aside a controversial Final Rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service, which required 24-hour GPS tracking of recreational charter boat fishing vessels and reporting of confidential economic data. As Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote, “in promulgating this regulation, the Government committed multiple independent Administrative Procedure Act violations, and very likely violated the Fourth Amendment.” The ruling is major for many reasons, including that the government tried to claim that charter boat fishing is a “closely-regulated industry” to which the Fourth Amendment does not apply. Vec discusses NCLA’s recent win in Mexican Gulf Fishing Company v. U.S. Department of Commerce.

The President does not have the legal authority to forgive student loans on his own. Only Congress can enact laws authorizing debt-forgiveness programs. And only Congress has the power of the purse to pay for debt forgiveness. That is why NCLA has filed a lawsuit on behalf of its client, Cato Institute, urging the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas to stop the Department of Education (ED)’s student-loan-debt-cancellation plan. Two related lawsuits against the half-trillion-dollar loan cancellation plan, Biden v. Nebraska and Dept. of Education v. Brown, have made it to the Supreme Court and will be argued on February 28, 2023. NCLA and Cato have both filed separate amicus briefs arguing the program is both unlawful and unfair. This cancellation plan, however, is merely the most prominent part of ED’s recent unconstitutional attempts at student-loan-debt-cancellation. Since October 2020, ED has paused monthly payments and interest accrual for all student-loan borrowers, regardless of their economic situation. The forgone interest alone has cost taxpayers over $100 billion, And in January, ED announced yet a new plan to transform income-driven repayment plans into grants, which will cost another half-trillion dollars over the next decade. Like the loan-cancellation plan being argued in the Supreme Court, both the ongoing pause and the repayment proposal are unconstitutional agency actions that fail to address the unsustainable cost of higher education. NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Russ Ryan moderates a discussion on this thorny issue with NCLA Litigation Counsel Sheng Li and Neal McClusky, Director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute.