Unwritten Law

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione take on a provocative argument from The New Republic: Is the Supreme Court weakening Congress and creating a more powerful presidency?
Mark and John give author Matt Ford credit for a thoughtful and well-researched article—but think he draws the wrong conclusion from much of the evidence.
They examine major Supreme Court decisions including Loper Bright/Relentless, SEC v. Jarkesy, Cargill v. Garland, Seila Law, and Trump v. Slaughter and argue that the Court's recent jurisprudence is better understood as an effort to restore the constitutional separation of powers.
The president should control the executive branch. Congress should make the laws. Courts should exercise judicial power. And when Congress gives the executive branch too much discretion, the solution isn't to blame the courts for presidential power—it's for Congress to reclaim its constitutional responsibilities.
Mark and John also discuss presidential removal power, administrative adjudication, jury trials, emergency powers, presidential immunity, and why Congress may need to revisit decades-old statutes that hand enormous discretion to the executive branch.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by Senior Litigation Counsel Russ Ryan to discuss Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, an important case headed to the Supreme Court.
Sun Valley Orchards is a family farm that employs domestic workers as well as foreign workers through the H-2A visa program. After the Department of Labor accused the farm of violating requirements governing its workers, the agency pursued the case through its own administrative adjudication process and ultimately imposed roughly half a million dollars in penalties.
But should an executive agency be able to adjudicate a case involving private rights and impose substantial monetary penalties—or does the Constitution require that kind of dispute to be heard by an independent Article III court?
Russ discusses NCLA's amicus brief, filed with the Buckeye Institute and Americans for Prosperity Foundation, arguing that judicial power belongs exclusively to the judicial branch. The conversation also explores the distinction between so-called "public" and "private" rights, the Supreme Court's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, and why the Court may finally need to confront its longstanding Atlas Roofing precedent.
With Sun Valley Orchards set to be argued before the Supreme Court, the case could provide important answers about the constitutional limits of administrative adjudication.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by Senior Litigation Counsel Andy Morris to discuss National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Ryan, NCLA's newly filed challenge to Colorado's Producer Responsibility Program for recycling.
The lawsuit isn't about opposing recycling. Instead, it challenges Colorado's decision to replace local recycling systems with a statewide program administered by a private organization—the Circular Action Alliance (CAA)—that businesses must join in order to sell certain products in the state.
Andy explains why NCLA argues the law unlawfully delegates governmental authority to a private entity that can set fees, establish rules, and impose significant consequences on businesses without meaningful public accountability.
The discussion also explores the law's First Amendment implications, due process concerns, the Dormant Commerce Clause, and a provision that prohibits businesses from itemizing these recycling fees on customer receipts. Mark, John, and Andy examine why distributors across the country may bear the costs of Colorado's program and what the lawsuit could mean for the constitutional limits on delegating government power to private organizations.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by Senior Litigation Counsel Jacob Huebert to discuss NCLA's newly filed lawsuit challenging Montgomery County, Maryland's ban on firearms in places of worship and within 100 yards of numerous public gathering places.
The case, Silver Spring Jewish Center v. Montgomery County, was filed just days after the ordinance took effect. NCLA argues that the law violates the Second Amendment by making it nearly impossible for law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to bear arms while also interfering with the synagogue's ability to protect its congregation.
Jacob explains why the lawsuit also raises significant First Amendment concerns. The Silver Spring Jewish Center believes that members of its congregation should provide security during worship, consistent with its religious beliefs and practices. NCLA argues that the county's ordinance unlawfully burdens both the free exercise of religion and the autonomy of religious institutions.
The discussion also examines the Supreme Court's recent decision in Wolford v. Lopez, the meaning of "sensitive places" under the Second Amendment, and why NCLA believes Montgomery County has gone far beyond the constitutional limits recognized by the Court.

In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione discuss NCLA's Supreme Court amicus brief in Boysen v. PeaceHealth, a case asking the Court to revisit Jacobson v. Massachusetts, its landmark 1905 vaccine mandate decision.
The conversation examines how Jacobson—which upheld a smallpox vaccination requirement more than a century ago—was relied upon by courts throughout the COVID-19 pandemic to uphold modern vaccine mandates. John explains why NCLA argues that today's courts have expanded Jacobson far beyond its original facts, applying it to vaccines that do not prevent transmission and to mandates carrying consequences far more severe than the modest fine at issue in the 1905 case.
Mark and John also discuss the constitutional right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, the significance of natural immunity, emergency use authorizations, and why they believe the Supreme Court should clarify the limits of Jacobson now—before another public health emergency forces courts to confront these issues under crisis conditions.
The episode explores why Boysen v. PeaceHealth could provide the Court with an important opportunity to define the constitutional boundaries of public health mandates for the modern era.