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 NCLA General Counsel Zhonette Brown to discuss new developments in Choice Refrigerants v. EPA, a case asking the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the nondelegation doctrine.
The conversation focuses on a wave of amicus briefs filed in support of Supreme Court review, including a brief led by West Virginia and joined by 20 other states, as well as submissions from organizations such as Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Cato Institute, Manhattan Institute, and Southeastern Legal Foundation.
Zhonette explains the key arguments raised in those briefs, including how broad delegations of power to federal agencies can undermine federalism by displacing state authority, why doctrines like the “major questions” rule may not be sufficient to protect the separation of powers, and how shifting regulatory interpretations can create instability for businesses.
The episode also examines arguments that delegation must be grounded in the Necessary and Proper Clause, concerns about courts and agencies effectively supplying their own “intelligible principles,” and why this case is viewed as a strong vehicle for the Supreme Court to take up the nondelegation issue.
Mark, John, and Zhonette close by discussing the road ahead, including the timeline for responses and when the Court is expected to decide whether it will hear the case.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione break down a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit involving plans to construct a ballroom at the White House.
The case—brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation—sought to halt construction, raising questions about historic preservation, executive authority, and whether private organizations have standing to challenge government building decisions on aesthetic grounds. The D.C. Circuit ultimately remanded the case to the district court, questioning the basis for an earlier injunction.
Mark and John explore the key legal issues, including whether the plaintiffs have standing, the scope of statutory authority allowing the President to “improve” the White House grounds, and how national security considerations factor into the analysis—particularly regarding underground security features tied to the project.
The episode also examines the practical realities of the case, including the fact that the original structure has already been demolished, raising questions about what relief is even possible at this stage of litigation.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione break down Trump v. Barbara, a closely watched case before the U.S. Supreme Court addressing the scope of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.
John shares firsthand insights from attending oral argument, where the Court considered whether the Constitution guarantees citizenship to all children born in the United States or whether limits may apply to the children of illegal immigrants and temporary visitors. The case stems from an executive order directing federal agencies to reinterpret the Citizenship Clause—raising both constitutional and administrative law questions.
The discussion explores the historical understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment, the role of allegiance and jurisdiction, and key precedents such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Mark and John also examine competing arguments presented at oral argument, including concerns about retroactivity, congressional authority, and the practical consequences of altering long-standing interpretations of citizenship.
The episode also highlights commentary from legal scholars, including an article by Philip Hamburger, and explains why the Court’s decision—expected later this term—could have major implications for immigration policy, constitutional law, and the separation of powers.
Philip Hamburger's article in Law & Liberty: Allegiance, Birthright, and Citizenship
https://lawliberty.org/allegiance-birthright-and-citizenship/

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth, Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel Peggy Little, and Of Counsel Margot Cleveland discuss a major settlement in The Daily Wire, The Federalist, and the State of Texas v. U.S. Department of State.
The case challenged a years-long effort in which State Department funds were routed through third-party organizations and technologies—such as the Global Disinformation Index and NewsGuard—to suppress and demonetize certain media outlets. According to the settlement, the government acknowledged that aspects of these activities violated the First Amendment and involved unlawful conduct.
The episode explains how the alleged “boomerang effect” allowed the government to work through foreign and private intermediaries to impact domestic speech, the investigative work that uncovered the scheme, and the discovery that revealed the scope of coordination across agencies, nonprofits, universities, and technology platforms.
Peggy and Margot walk through the key terms of the settlement, including restrictions on government coordination with censorship technologies, limits on grant funding tied to domestic speech, training and compliance requirements, and long-term oversight provisions designed to prevent similar conduct in the future.
The discussion also highlights the role of journalists, plaintiffs willing to challenge the government, and the court in bringing the case forward—and why the outcome may have significant implications for free speech, government accountability, and the limits of federal power.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione is joined by NCLA Litigation Counsel Casey Norman to discuss Pheasant v. United States, a case asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether Congress can delegate the power to create criminal laws to federal agencies.
The case began when a man riding a dirt bike on Bureau of Land Management land was charged with a criminal offense—not because Congress passed a law making his conduct a crime, but because a federal agency created the regulation and attached criminal penalties to it. NCLA filed an amicus brief supporting Supreme Court review, arguing that allowing agencies to define criminal conduct raises serious constitutional concerns.
The discussion explains the nondelegation doctrine, the “intelligible principle” test, and why criminal law raises special due process concerns when agencies—not Congress—decide what conduct can lead to fines or prison time. The episode also explores how modern courts interpret delegation differently than earlier courts and why this case could have major implications for the separation of powers.