Unwritten Law

In this episode of Unwritten Law, Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione are joined by NCLA Of Counsel Margot Cleveland to discuss one of NCLA’s most consequential ongoing cases: Davidson v. Adkins, a constitutional challenge to the SEC’s Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT).
The CAT requires broker-dealers to collect and transmit detailed data on virtually every stock trade in the United States, creating a massive government-accessible database of Americans’ financial activity. Margot explains why recent changes announced by the SEC—such as removing names but retaining identifying numbers—do not cure the Fourth Amendment problem, and why suspicionless, warrantless searches of stock-trading data resemble the general warrants the Constitution was designed to forbid.
The episode also examines the SEC’s repeated requests for delays while the program continues to operate, the lack of congressional authorization or appropriation for CAT, related rulings from the Eleventh Circuit, and the broader dangers of mass financial surveillance for privacy, free association, and constitutional limits on agency power.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione discuss John’s recent oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Word v. Department of Energy.
Bill Word and David Daquin both own a dishwasher and a washing machine that they want to replace. The U.S. Department of Energy has imposed regulations in 2012 and 2024 illegally limiting how much water dishwashers and washing machines can use. The appliances Word and Daquin want to buy use more water than those regulations allow. But under the amended Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the Department of Energy can only regulate water use in “faucets, showerheads, water closets and urinals”.
The conversation also explores a key procedural question: where regulated parties can seek meaningful relief when an agency repeatedly issues unlawful rules, and whether district courts must be able to issue injunctions to stop ultra vires agency action. Along the way, Mark and John reflect on the Fifth Circuit’s prior rulings, post-Loper Bright limits on agency power, and why congressional action—not bureaucratic improvisation—is the proper way to regulate.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione and NCLA President Mark Chenoweth discuss a major development in NCLA’s challenge to a federal rule requiring fishermen to pay for government monitors placed on their boats—despite no clear statutory authorization.
After a district court upheld the rule using a theory that conflicts with the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright, NCLA appealed to the First Circuit. Now, seven separate amicus briefs—from across the legal and ideological spectrum—have weighed in, each highlighting a different flaw in the district court’s analysis.
John and Mark walk through the most compelling arguments from the amici, including post-Loper Bright de novo review, the misuse of “necessary and appropriate” authority, clear-statement rules, the Major Questions Doctrine, constitutional limits on agency power, and why reviving Chevron-era reasoning under new labels is not permissible.

What happens when a state or local police officer violates someone’s constitutional rights—and courts say there’s no practical way to sue?
In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by Casey Norman to discuss Mohamud v. Weyker (No. 25-760), now at the U.S. Supreme Court.
NCLA’s amicus brief explains that multiple courts have recognized Officer Heather Weyker (a St. Paul police officer) abused her authority by fabricating allegations against Hamdi A. Mohamud and at least 30 other people—conduct the brief describes as “framing” that led to Mohamud’s incarceration for over two years. Yet the Eighth Circuit held Mohamud cannot sue Weyker under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Weyker was also cross-deputized for a federal task force—treating the conduct as federal in nature and shutting the courthouse door.
The episode also explains why this accountability gap is especially dangerous after Egbert v. Boule, which largely eliminated Bivens remedies for most plaintiffs—making § 1983 often the only viable path for damages when cross-deputized officers violate constitutional rights.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione break down the Supreme Court’s oral argument in Trump v. Cook, a case that puts presidential power, Federal Reserve independence, and the meaning of “for cause” removal squarely before the Court.
The discussion explores why the Justices appeared unusually skeptical of the government’s position, how the case arrived on the emergency docket, and whether a president must provide notice or a hearing before removing a Federal Reserve governor. Mark and John examine the distinction between the Fed’s interest-rate authority and its regulatory power, debate whether pre-appointment conduct can justify removal, and unpack the broader separation-of-powers implications.
If the Court limits the president here, does it invite a direct constitutional challenge to “for cause” protections? And what does this case signal about how the Court views executive control over independent agencies? A lively, substantive conversation about one of the most surprising Supreme Court arguments of the term.