Can Congress Let EPA Pick Winners and Losers?

Can Congress Let EPA Pick Winners and Losers?

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth, Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione, and General Counsel Zhonette Brown discuss NCLA's recently filed reply brief in Choice Refrigerants v. EPA, a case asking the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the nondelegation doctrine. The conversation focuses on a fundamental constitutional question: Can Congress hand an agency virtually unlimited discretion to decide which companies receive valuable market allocations—and which do not? Zhonette explains why the government's response brief and supporting industry briefs point to different alleged "intelligible principles," highlighting what NCLA argues is the complete absence of any meaningful statutory guidance. The discussion also explores why notice-and-comment rulemaking is not a substitute for legislative accountability and why decisions affecting entire industries should be made by Congress—not unelected administrators. Mark, John, and Zhonette also compare the case to other recent Supreme Court administrative law decisions, discuss the support of 21 states and numerous public-interest organizations, and explain why they believe Choice Refrigerants presents an ideal vehicle for the Court to strengthen the nondelegation doctrine. With the petition scheduled for the Supreme Court's June 18 conference, the episode offers an inside look at one of NCLA's most significant constitutional cases.

A Tale of Two Judicial Discipline Cases

Why did one federal judge receive only a reprimand after engaging in sexual activities in her chambers, while Federal Judge Pauline Newman remains sidelined after more than three years — with no judicial review of her suspension, despite no findings of misconduct and passing 3 mental fitness tests from 3 different doctors? In this episode of Unwritten Law, Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione discuss a recent judicial misconduct case that has prompted new scrutiny of the federal judiciary's internal disciplinary process. The discussion explores: * A federal judge who received a private reprimand after misconduct findings * Why the judge was allowed to continue hearing cases * How that outcome compares to Judge Pauline Newman's ongoing suspension * The role of judicial councils in disciplining federal judges * Concerns about transparency, accountability, and consistency * Why legal commentators across the ideological spectrum have questioned the result Mark and John also examine what these cases reveal about administrative processes within the judiciary and whether reforms may be needed to restore public confidence.

The Licensing Board That Ignored Due Process

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by Litigation Counsel Casey Norman to discuss Kurtin v. South Carolina Department of Labor, a case challenging an extraordinary series of procedural abuses by a state licensing board. NCLA is challenging the South Carolina Real Estate Board’s unlawful sanctions against certified residential appraiser Joseph Kirton. Casey explains how the board pursued charges based on standards it had not yet adopted, introduced new allegations during the hearing itself, relied on a substitute investigator who had no involvement in the original investigation, refused access to key documents, and claimed that statutes of limitations did not apply to its proceedings. The discussion also explores broader constitutional issues raised by administrative licensing boards, including notice, fairness, retroactive enforcement, jury trial rights, and the danger of allowing agencies to serve as investigator, prosecutor, and adjudicator all at once. Mark, John, and Casey examine why this case could have implications far beyond South Carolina and why professionals across the country should pay attention.

The SEC Repealed the Gag Rule. While It's a Victory for Free Speech and NLCA, It's Not Over.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth, Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione, and Senior Litigation Counsel Peggy Little discuss a major development in Powell v. SEC: the SEC has formally rescinded its decades-old gag rule. The rule prohibited settling defendants from publicly denying the SEC's allegations against them, often leaving individuals silenced for years—or even decades—after their cases ended. The repeal marks a significant victory for free speech and follows years of litigation, advocacy, and a Supreme Court petition filed on behalf of NCLA clients including Thomas Powell. But is the fight over? Peggy explains why thousands of existing gag orders may still remain in place, why future SEC officials could potentially revive similar restrictions, and why NCLA believes the Supreme Court should still hear the case and issue a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of government-imposed settlement gags. The discussion also examines the role of 16 amicus briefs supporting Supreme Court review, the SEC's reasoning for repealing the rule, and the broader implications for free speech, administrative power, and government accountability.

Can Illinois Require Permission to Touch a Gun?

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by Litigation Counsel Jacob Huebert to discuss a newly filed federal lawsuit challenging Illinois’ Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card system. The case, Laurent v. Kelly, argues that Illinois unconstitutionally requires residents to obtain government permission before they may possess, use, or even touch a firearm in their own homes. NCLA contends that the law violates both the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by forcing citizens to seek approval from the government before exercising a fundamental constitutional right. Jacob explains how the FOID system works, why delays and administrative hurdles can prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising self-defense rights for months at a time, and how the law compares to unconstitutional “prior restraints” in the First Amendment context. The episode also examines the experiences of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs, including a Navy veteran and Chicago residents who object to the idea that constitutional rights should depend on government permission slips. Mark, John, and Jacob further discuss the implications of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision and why this challenge could have consequences beyond Illinois.