Unwritten Law

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione and NCLA General Counsel Zhonette Brown discuss their work on Murthy v. Missouri, one of the most significant First Amendment cases in recent years.
They explain how the case began, the discovery battles that revealed government “back-channel” communications with social media companies, the preliminary injunction, the Supreme Court’s standing decision, and the consent decree that followed. They also discuss what the government agreed to in the settlement and what it could mean for free speech and government involvement with online platforms in the future.
This conversation offers a behind-the-scenes look at how the case unfolded over several years—and why its outcome could shape First Amendment law in the years ahead.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by NCLA Litigation Counsel Andy Morris to discuss Newman v. Moore, a case asking the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether a federal judge can be effectively removed from hearing cases without meaningful judicial review.
Judge Pauline Newman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has been barred from hearing new cases for years under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act—despite never being impeached and despite medical evaluations finding her fit to serve. The courts so far have refused to review the merits of her case, citing precedent that treats these actions as internal court administration.
The petition asks the Supreme Court to decide whether courts must be able to review actions that go beyond temporary administrative measures and effectively remove an Article III judge from the bench. The case raises major constitutional questions about judicial independence, separation of powers, and whether “court administration” can be used in a way that avoids judicial review altogether.
Mark, John, and Andy explain the legal issues, the procedural hurdles, and why the case is about more than one judge—it’s about whether there are limits on internal judicial power and whether federal courts must be open to hear constitutional claims.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by Senior Litigation Counsel Peggy Little to discuss Powell v. SEC, case that NCLA is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the SEC’s long-standing “gag rule.”
The rule prohibits individuals who settle with the SEC from ever publicly denying the agency’s allegations—even if they believe those allegations are false. Peggy explains why the case presents a major First Amendment question involving prior restraint, viewpoint discrimination, and unconstitutional conditions.
The conversation also explores the real-world consequences of the rule: how it silences defendants, prevents journalists from reporting both sides of enforcement actions, distorts market information, and allows agencies to expand their power through settlements that most people cannot afford to fight.
The episode discusses key Supreme Court precedents, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and why this case could have major implications not just for the SEC, but for government settlement practices across the administrative state.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione is joined by NCLA Staff Attorney Andreia Trifoi to discuss a major Fourth Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court involving the use of geofence warrants.
Geofence warrants allow law enforcement to obtain location data from companies like Google identifying every device within a specific area during a defined period of time—potentially sweeping in dozens or even hundreds of people with no connection to any crime. Andreia explains how these warrants work, why they often capture innocent bystanders, and how they were used in a bank robbery investigation in Virginia.
The conversation focuses on the constitutional question at the heart of the case: whether geofence warrants are modern-day general warrants, the very abuse that helped inspire the Fourth Amendment. The discussion also explores how the Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter v. United States applies to modern location tracking, the challenges courts face when adapting older doctrines to new technology, and the growing tension between privacy rights and expansive digital surveillance.
John and Andreia also examine the fractured opinions in the Fourth Circuit, the role of the good-faith exception, and why this case could shape the future of Fourth Amendment protections in the digital age.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione welcome Caitlin Moyna, Senior Litigation Counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, to the podcast for the first time.
The conversation focuses on the controversial “disparate impact” liability rule in housing law and HUD’s effort to rescind it. The rule allows liability for housing practices that unintentionally affect one group more than another—even when there is no intent to discriminate.
Caitlin explains how this doctrine emerged from a series of Supreme Court cases, beginning with Griggs v. Duke Power and later extending into the housing context through Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project. The discussion explores how disparate impact liability shifted discrimination law away from intentional conduct and toward statistical outcomes.
The episode also examines how agency interpretations and judicial deference helped expand this doctrine over time—and why recent Supreme Court decisions curtailing agency deference may put its legal foundations into question.
Mark, John, and Caitlin discuss the implications of HUD rescinding the rule, why private lawsuits could still continue under the statute, and what a broader reevaluation of disparate impact liability could mean for housing, employment, lending, and other areas of federal regulation.