SCOTUS Rejects Hawaii's Gun Rights Workaround

Justice Thomas's Warning to Federal Agencies

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione is joined by Staff Counsel Christian Clase to discuss a remarkable concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas in a recent Supreme Court case involving Roundup, pesticide regulation, and federal preemption. Although the Court's decision focused on whether federal law preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims, Justice Thomas used his concurrence to highlight a much broader set of constitutional concerns. His opinion raises questions about Congress's Commerce Clause authority, the constitutionality of broad delegations of power to administrative agencies, and whether federal agency actions should be capable of preempting state law at all. John and Christian examine Thomas's critique of modern administrative governance, including his concern that agencies can effectively create rules carrying civil and criminal consequences while exercising powers traditionally reserved to Congress. The discussion also explores Thomas's argument that agency action does not fit neatly within the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, why he views administrative preemption as constitutionally suspect, and how his opinion may serve as a roadmap for future constitutional challenges. The episode offers a deep dive into one of the most important administrative law concurrences of the term and what it could mean for the future of agency power.

SCOTUS Rejects Hawaii's Gun Rights Workaround

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione is joined by Litigation Counsel Jacob Huebert to discuss the Supreme Court's decision in Wolford v. Lopez, a significant Second Amendment case arising from Hawaii. After the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Bruen, Hawaii enacted a law making it a crime to carry a firearm on private property open to the public unless the property owner expressly consented. The Supreme Court recently rejected that approach, concluding that Hawaii's law lacked historical support and effectively undermined the right to carry recognized in Bruen. John and Jacob discuss the Court's reasoning, Justice Alito's concurrence, the debate over historical analogues such as Reconstruction-era Black Codes, and why constitutional rights cannot vary based on what one court called the "spirit of aloha." The conversation also explores what the decision could mean for NCLA's challenge to Illinois' Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card system in Laurent v. Kelly. Jacob explains why Illinois similarly flips the normal presumption of constitutional rights by requiring citizens to obtain government permission before possessing a firearm—even in their own homes. The episode highlights the Supreme Court's renewed attention to Second Amendment cases and why recent decisions may strengthen challenges to laws that condition constitutional rights on prior government approval.

The SEC Case That Could Expand Jury Trial Rights

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione is joined by Senior Litigation Counsel Russ Ryan to discuss Smith v. SEC, a case raising fundamental questions about jury trial rights, administrative adjudication, and constitutional exhaustion requirements. The case began more than a decade ago when FINRA initiated an investigation into George Smith. After years of proceedings before FINRA and the SEC, Smith challenged the process itself, arguing that he was entitled to have his case heard in an Article III court before a jury rather than through an administrative enforcement system. Russ explains how a Sixth Circuit panel recently suggested that Smith's constitutional arguments may have substantial merit—but nevertheless ruled against him on the ground that he failed to raise those arguments before the SEC itself. The discussion explores why agencies lack expertise and authority to resolve constitutional questions, how recent Supreme Court decisions such as Axon, Cochran, and Free Enterprise Fund bear on the issue, and why forcing litigants to exhaust constitutional claims before agencies creates a procedural trap. John and Russ also discuss the amicus briefs supporting rehearing, including filings from the Pacific Legal Foundation, the New Civil Liberties Alliance's allies in the administrative law space, and a brief submitted on behalf of entrepreneur Mark Cuban. The episode highlights broader questions about due process, administrative power, and whether Americans can truly be said to have "waived" constitutional rights by failing to raise them before agencies that have no power to grant relief.

Why Is the SEC Tracking Every Stock Trade?

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione is joined by Senior Litigation Counsel Peggy Little to discuss the SEC's Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT)—a massive government database that collects information on virtually every securities transaction made by American investors. The conversation centers on a new SEC request for public comments on the future of the CAT system, including the possibility of eliminating it altogether. Peggy explains why NCLA has long challenged the CAT, arguing that it creates serious constitutional, privacy, cybersecurity, and separation-of-powers concerns. The discussion explores how the CAT differs from traditional investigative tools such as the SEC's "blue sheet" process, why the database contains sensitive information about millions of Americans, and how cybersecurity breaches at government agencies raise concerns about concentrating so much financial information in a single location. John and Peggy also examine questions surrounding the CAT's funding mechanism, the role of self-regulatory organizations, and why NCLA believes Congress never authorized the SEC to create such a sweeping surveillance system in the first place. The episode concludes with a discussion of the SEC's public comment process and how ordinary Americans can make their voices heard on the future of the CAT.

The Fight Over Who Decides Constitutional Claims

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by Senior Litigation Counsel Alana Black to discuss NCLA's amicus brief in Johnson v. United States Congress, a case asking whether constitutional challenges to federal statutes must be heard by Article III courts. The case involves a disabled veteran challenging a federal law affecting veterans benefits. Rather than allowing his constitutional claims to proceed in federal district court, lower courts relied on the Supreme Court's Thunder Basin and Elgin precedents to route the dispute through an administrative review process. Alana explains why NCLA believes those precedents are inconsistent with Congress's longstanding practice of ensuring that constitutional challenges to federal laws receive direct judicial review. Drawing on more than a century of statutory history, she shows how Congress repeatedly treated constitutional challenges as a special category of cases deserving heightened judicial attention—not administrative adjudication. The discussion also explores the relationship between Thunder Basin, Axon, Cochran, Loper Bright, and Relentless, as well as broader questions about separation of powers, judicial authority, and whether administrative tribunals should play any role in deciding constitutional claims.