In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are again joined by NCLA Staff Attorney Andreia Trifoi to discuss the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J.

The Court held that neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause prevents states from organizing school sports teams based on biological sex. Andreia explains why the Court looked to the ordinary meaning of “sex” when Title IX was enacted in 1972 and why the statute’s original purpose was to expand athletic opportunities for women.

The discussion also focuses on Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence and NCLA’s amicus argument under the Spending Clause. Because Title IX conditions federal funding on compliance with certain requirements, states must receive clear notice of those conditions before accepting the money. Andreia explains why states agreeing to Title IX in 1972 could not have understood “sex” to include gender identity decades later.

Mark, John, and Andreia also discuss the history and practical effects of Title IX, the Biden Administration’s unsuccessful attempt to expand the statute through regulation, and why federal agencies cannot rewrite the terms of Congress’s spending programs after states have already accepted them.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by NCLA Staff Attorney Andreia Trifoi to discuss the Supreme Court's landmark Fourth Amendment decision in Chatrie v. United States.

The Court held that the government's collection of cell phone location history through a geofence warrant constitutes a Fourth Amendment search—a significant victory for digital privacy and one of the Court's most important Fourth Amendment decisions since Carpenter v. United States.

Andreia explains how geofence warrants work, why they can sweep millions of people's location records into a single investigation, and why the Court concluded that this type of dragnet surveillance implicates constitutional protections.

The discussion also explores the relationship between Chatrie and Carpenter, the future of automatic license plate reader (ALPR) litigation, Justice Gorsuch's property-based concurrence, and what the decision could mean for emerging surveillance technologies.

For anyone concerned about privacy in the digital age, Chatrie represents an important reaffirmation that constitutional protections must evolve alongside modern technology.

Part 2 of our Supreme Court Special.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Jacob Huebert to examine the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Cook and what it means for the Federal Reserve and presidential removal power.

Although the Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter significantly expanded the President's authority to remove executive officers, Trump v. Cook stopped short of applying that reasoning to the Federal Reserve. Jacob explains why the Court emphasized the Federal Reserve's unique historical role, how Chief Justice Roberts relied on history and tradition, and why the Justices treated monetary policy differently from other executive functions.

The discussion explores the government's arguments, standing, the Court's emergency-docket analysis, Justice Thomas's separate writing, and why Myers, Humphrey's Executor, and the First and Second Banks of the United States all played an important role in the Court's reasoning.

Mark, John, and Jacob also discuss what constitutional questions remain unresolved, whether the Federal Reserve's regulatory powers could still face future challenges, and why Trump v. Cook may not be the final word on presidential control over independent agencies.

In this special Supreme Court edition of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by NCLA Of Counsel Margot Cleveland to discuss the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Trump v. Slaughter.

The Court's decision effectively ends Humphrey's Executor, the 1935 precedent that limited the President's authority to remove leaders of independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission. Margot, who authored NCLA's amicus brief supporting the President's position, explains why the decision represents one of the Court's most significant separation-of-powers rulings in decades.

The discussion explores how the Court built on earlier decisions such as Seila Law, why Chief Justice Roberts described Myers v. United States as the foundational precedent for presidential removal authority, and what the decision means for the future of the administrative state.

Mark, John, and Margot also examine Justice Gorsuch's concurrence, severability, the unresolved questions surrounding the Federal Reserve and the civil service, and why the Court appears to be methodically restoring presidential control over executive officers.

The episode concludes with a look ahead at the next constitutional battles likely to follow in the wake of Trump v. Slaughter.

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.

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.

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.

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.