Unwritten Law

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by Litigation Counsel Casey Norman to discuss Kurtin v. South Carolina Department of Labor, a case challenging an extraordinary series of procedural abuses by a state licensing board.
NCLA is challenging the South Carolina Real Estate Board’s unlawful sanctions against certified residential appraiser Joseph Kirton.
Casey explains how the board pursued charges based on standards it had not yet adopted, introduced new allegations during the hearing itself, relied on a substitute investigator who had no involvement in the original investigation, refused access to key documents, and claimed that statutes of limitations did not apply to its proceedings.
The discussion also explores broader constitutional issues raised by administrative licensing boards, including notice, fairness, retroactive enforcement, jury trial rights, and the danger of allowing agencies to serve as investigator, prosecutor, and adjudicator all at once.
Mark, John, and Casey examine why this case could have implications far beyond South Carolina and why professionals across the country should pay attention.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth, Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione, and Senior Litigation Counsel Peggy Little discuss a major development in Powell v. SEC: the SEC has formally rescinded its decades-old gag rule.
The rule prohibited settling defendants from publicly denying the SEC's allegations against them, often leaving individuals silenced for years—or even decades—after their cases ended. The repeal marks a significant victory for free speech and follows years of litigation, advocacy, and a Supreme Court petition filed on behalf of NCLA clients including Thomas Powell.
But is the fight over?
Peggy explains why thousands of existing gag orders may still remain in place, why future SEC officials could potentially revive similar restrictions, and why NCLA believes the Supreme Court should still hear the case and issue a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of government-imposed settlement gags.
The discussion also examines the role of 16 amicus briefs supporting Supreme Court review, the SEC's reasoning for repealing the rule, and the broader implications for free speech, administrative power, and government accountability.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by Litigation Counsel Jacob Huebert to discuss a newly filed federal lawsuit challenging Illinois’ Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card system.
The case, Laurent v. Kelly, argues that Illinois unconstitutionally requires residents to obtain government permission before they may possess, use, or even touch a firearm in their own homes. NCLA contends that the law violates both the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by forcing citizens to seek approval from the government before exercising a fundamental constitutional right.
Jacob explains how the FOID system works, why delays and administrative hurdles can prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising self-defense rights for months at a time, and how the law compares to unconstitutional “prior restraints” in the First Amendment context.
The episode also examines the experiences of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs, including a Navy veteran and Chicago residents who object to the idea that constitutional rights should depend on government permission slips. Mark, John, and Jacob further discuss the implications of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision and why this challenge could have consequences beyond Illinois.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione discuss developments in the Supreme Court’s landmark Loper Bright and Relentless (2024) decisions overturning Chevron deference.
Mark and John explain the unusual procedural developments following the Supreme Court’s decision, including remand proceedings in the First Circuit, negotiations over holding the case in abeyance, and why the federal government may now be reconsidering the legality and practicality of the rule.
The episode also explores broader implications of Loper Bright: why agencies can no longer rely on Chevron deference to expand statutory authority, why removing unlawful rules matters beyond any one administration, and how regulatory power can continue to affect industries long after political leadership changes.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by NCLA General Counsel Zhonette Brown to discuss the federal government’s response brief in Choice Refrigerants v. EPA, a case asking the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the nondelegation doctrine.
The discussion focuses on whether Congress unconstitutionally handed the EPA broad authority to determine how shrinking refrigerant allowances are allocated under the AIM Act—effectively deciding which companies can continue operating and which may be pushed out of the market.
Zhonette explains why the case is not simply about environmental regulation, but about who controls market share and economic liberty in America. The conversation explores the “gaping hole” in the statute identified by NCLA: while Congress specified detailed chemical formulas, phase-down schedules, and military-use carveouts, it failed to explain how the EPA should allocate allowances among competing businesses.
The episode also examines the practical consequences for small businesses like Choice Refrigerants, whose owner developed replacement refrigerants without the resources of major industry players. Mark, John, and Zhonette discuss how the EPA created new entrant carveouts, reshuffled market allocations, and exercised broad discretion that NCLA argues belongs to Congress—not federal agencies.
The conversation further explores broader constitutional themes raised by the case, including preemption, federalism, economic liberty, and the Supreme Court’s recent signals that it may be willing to revive meaningful limits on congressional delegation of legislative power.