Can the government deny you a jury trial—and then refuse to let you challenge that denial in federal court?

NCLA is asking the Supreme Court to hear Smith v. SEC, a case challenging the constitutional limits of administrative adjudication and the procedural barriers that can prevent Americans from asserting their rights.

On 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 Russ Ryan to discuss the newly filed Supreme Court petition.

NCLA client Eric Smith was sanctioned through a FINRA disciplinary proceeding without a jury or an Article III judge. The SEC subsequently affirmed the sanctions after years of delay.

When Smith sought review in the Sixth Circuit, NCLA argued that the proceedings violated constitutional protections recognized by the Supreme Court in SEC v. Jarkesy. But the appeals court declined to consider the constitutional challenge because Smith had not first presented it to the SEC.

NCLA is asking the Supreme Court to resolve disagreements among federal appeals courts over whether Americans must raise structural constitutional objections before administrative agencies—and whether they can be excused from doing so when the agency has already made clear that the argument would be futile.

Mark, John, and Russ explain why this dispute matters far beyond Eric Smith, why administrative agencies should not be the gatekeepers of constitutional challenges to their own proceedings, and what happens next as NCLA asks the Justices to hear the case.

After more than three years, Judge Pauline Newman's judicial conduct and disability proceeding has been transferred out of the Federal Circuit.

It's a significant and unprecedented development in a case that NCLA has been fighting since 2023.

On this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione and Andy Morris discuss the newly disclosed order from Eleventh Circuit Chief Judge William Pryor confirming that Judge Newman's proceeding has been transferred to the Eleventh Circuit.

Judge Newman has sought a transfer since April 2023, arguing that judges involved in the controversy should not adjudicate the proceeding themselves. Now, after multiple orders, suspensions, and years of litigation, a different judicial council will handle the matter.

John and Andy explain:

• Why Judge Newman sought a transfer in the first place
• What the Eleventh Circuit's new order reveals
• Why a transfer after more than three years is unprecedented
• What remains confidential about the proceeding
• Why Judge Newman requested broader public disclosure
• What the transfer means for the next phase of her case
• Why this development does not yet change her status on the bench

The transfer raises important questions about judicial impartiality, accountability, and the procedures used to investigate federal judges.

What happens next for Judge Newman? John and Andy explain what they can—and cannot—say about this major development.

Subscribe to Unwritten Law for updates on this case and NCLA's work defending constitutional rights.

What happens when a federal agency publicly declares a product unsafe—but can't adequately explain the evidence behind that declaration?

NCLA has secured an important ruling for Dreamland Baby Company in its challenge to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

On this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth is joined by Senior Litigation Counsel Kara McKenna Rollins to discuss the latest decision in Dreamland Baby Company v. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Dreamland makes weighted infant sleep products. CPSC publicly warned consumers against using such products, a declaration with potentially devastating consequences for a company selling products for babies. Dreamland challenged the agency, arguing that its statements were inaccurate and misleading and weren't supported by the available data.

The agency fought to prevent judicial review of its action. The court rejected that position. And when it examined what CPSC had actually considered, it found the record insufficient to evaluate the agency's decision and sent the matter back to CPSC for further consideration.

Mark and Kara discuss what the ruling means for Dreamland, why agencies shouldn't be able to sidestep statutory procedures through public warnings, and why government safety pronouncements should be grounded in transparent evidence and data.

The SEC's Consolidated Audit Trail collects information on virtually every stock-market transaction in the United States, creating an enormous database that regulators can search for suspicious activity without first identifying a particular person or crime.

NCLA has long argued that this mass collection and searching of Americans' financial information violates the Fourth Amendment. Now, a new Supreme Court decision could strengthen that challenge.

On this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by Margot Cleveland to discuss the Supreme Court's recent decision in Chatrie v. United States and its implications for NCLA's CAT challenge, Davidson v. SEC.

In Chatrie, the Supreme Court held that the government's use of Google's location database to identify people near the scene of a crime constituted a Fourth Amendment search. Rather than beginning with a suspect supported by probable cause, investigators searched a large pool of people's location information and worked backward to identify a suspect.

Mark, John, and Margot explain why they see a powerful parallel with CAT. The government collects vast amounts of trading data, runs algorithms against it looking for suspicious transactions, and then identifies the individuals behind those trades. As they put it, the government is using the search itself to develop the probable cause that ordinarily should precede a search.

They also discuss the “third-party doctrine,” whether Americans surrender their privacy rights simply because financial information passes through a broker, and why constitutional protections must keep pace with the government's increasingly powerful surveillance technology.

NCLA has won an important preliminary victory for members of the Silver Spring Jewish Center who want to protect their congregation.

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 Jacob Huebert to discuss the latest development in Silver Spring Jewish Center v. Montgomery County.

Montgomery County banned firearms at places of public assembly, including houses of worship, as well as within 100 yards of those locations. The restrictions prevented the Silver Spring Jewish Center from continuing to use its internal security team of trained, licensed congregants—a security measure the synagogue adopted following the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks in Israel and the subsequent rise in antisemitism. UL Silver Spring Jewish Center

A federal judge has now issued a preliminary injunction allowing members to carry firearms at the synagogue, finding that NCLA's clients are likely to succeed on their claims under both the Second Amendment and the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.

But the fight isn't over.

The court left Montgomery County's 100-yard restriction in place. That presents a particular problem for Orthodox Jewish members who must walk to synagogue on the Sabbath and Jewish holidays. As Jacob explains, one of NCLA's clients cannot make that walk without passing within 100 yards of parks, schools, or other prohibited locations. UL Silver Spring Jewish Center

Mark, John, and Jacob discuss the court's ruling, why NCLA is asking the judge to reconsider the 100-yard restriction, and the unusual collision of Second Amendment and religious-liberty rights at the heart of the case.

The Supreme Court has allowed construction of the new White House ballroom to continue—but the Court's 5–4 decision turned largely on a threshold question: Who actually has standing to challenge it?

On this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione is joined by NCLA Staff Attorney Andreia Trifoi to break down National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States.

The National Trust sued over the demolition and replacement of the White House East Wing. A lower court blocked above-ground construction, but the Supreme Court has now stayed that injunction, concluding that the Trust is likely to lack Article III standing. Its theory rested on a member who argued that the new ballroom would injure her aesthetic, cultural, and historical interests when she viewed the White House.

John and Andreia discuss why the Court rejected that theory, how the decision fits with decades of environmental standing cases, and the unusual 5–4 split—with Chief Justice Roberts joining Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson in dissent.

They also tackle the question lurking beneath the standing fight: If Congress—not a preservation group—has the strongest claim to challenge the project, why hasn't Congress acted?

Can the SEC force someone to give up money when it cannot identify a single harmed investor?

NCLA is asking the Supreme Court to take Spartan Securities Group v. SEC, a case that has been winding through the courts for years and now presents two significant questions about the reach of federal securities law.

NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by Senior Litigation Counsel Kara McKenna Rollins, who has worked on the case since 2019.

After a 14-count SEC complaint, NCLA’s clients were found not liable on 13 counts. The remaining dispute has now reached the Supreme Court, where NCLA is challenging both the scope of securities-fraud liability and the SEC’s use of disgorgement.

First, NCLA argues that statements made privately to FINRA and the Depository Trust Company cannot be treated as statements made “in connection with” the purchase or sale of securities when there is no evidence any investor ever saw or heard them. Second, NCLA argues that traditional equitable principles do not allow the SEC to obtain disgorgement when there are no harmed investors and the money instead goes to the U.S. Treasury.

Mark, John, and Kara explain why the case could give the Supreme Court an opportunity to clarify important limits on SEC enforcement—and resolve a question that has been developing in the lower courts for nearly a decade.