Unwritten Law

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.

Did the government install tracking software on people’s phones without permission?
In this episode of Unwritten Law, Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione are joined by NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Peggy Little to discuss Wright v. Goldstein, a case challenging Massachusetts’ use of COVID contact-tracing technology that was allegedly installed automatically on Android phones without users’ knowledge or consent.
The lawsuit argued that the program violated the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and computer intrusion laws by forcing software onto private phones and collecting sensitive data, including location and health information. The case resulted in a settlement requiring the state to delete the data and agree not to use similar technology for five years.
This episode explains the case, the constitutional issues, and why the settlement could have nationwide implications for digital privacy and government surveillance.

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.