The Administrative State

NCLA Asks Supreme Court to Permit Equitable Tolling of Statutory Deadlines to Thwart Agency Deceit

Retrieved on:

Friday, February 9, 2024

NCLA, Supreme, GxP, Eleventh, The Administrative State, Congress, DOT, PHMSA, Appeal, Supreme court, Administration, Transport, FRAP, Metal

v. DOT and decide that courts can equitably toll statutory deadlines to forestall agencies from tricking their enforcement targets.

Key Points:

v. DOT and decide that courts can equitably toll statutory deadlines to forestall agencies from tricking their enforcement targets.
The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling would prevent equitable tolling of all statutory filing deadlines for judicial review of agency orders, no matter how egregious, on the theory that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(b) precludes it.
But that cramped theory conflicts with Supreme Court precedent and precedents from other circuits, which hold that Congress legislates against a background presumption in favor of equitable tolling of statutory deadlines.
By categorically precluding tolling—not just to challenge this agency’s order but all agency orders—the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling encourages bad-faith agency conduct.

NCLA Asks Supreme Court to Uphold Injunction Against Government Social Media Censorship

Retrieved on:

Tuesday, February 6, 2024

The injunction would bar officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and Surgeon General’s office from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech.

Key Points:

The injunction would bar officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and Surgeon General’s office from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech.
In September, a Fifth Circuit panel upheld the key components of U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s July 4 preliminary injunction order, prohibiting named federal officials from coercing or significantly encouraging social media companies to suppress legal speech.
Though the U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily stayed the Fifth Circuit’s injunction, NCLA believes the Justices are ultimately unlikely to permit the egregious First Amendment abridgements this case has exposed.
In fact, much of the speech the government suppressed in this case—about Covid-19 and Hunter Biden’s laptop—was truthful.”
— Mark Chenoweth, President and Chief Legal Officer, NCLA

NCLA Asks Supreme Court to Rule Against ATF’s Unilateral Bump-Stock Ban

Retrieved on:

Tuesday, January 23, 2024

Speech, Bureau, Social media, Firearm, Commerce, Bump stock, Supreme, Fifth, Court, Judge, Tobacco, Congress, Supreme court, NCLA, Constitution, The Administrative State, Machine, Army, ATF

ATF issued a Final Rule in 2018 defining semi-automatic firearms equipped with bump stocks as “machineguns,” which federal law prohibits.

Key Points:

ATF issued a Final Rule in 2018 defining semi-automatic firearms equipped with bump stocks as “machineguns,” which federal law prohibits.
After it hears oral argument next month, NCLA is confident the Court will interpret the statute correctly and set aside ATF’s rule.
Just last week, oral arguments were presented to the Supreme Court in NCLA’s Relentless Inc. v. Dept.
The Supreme Court should set aside this rule that misconstrues the 1986 law banning machine guns and reverses ATF’s 15-plus year position allowing non-mechanical bump stocks.

NCLA Amicus Brief Asks Supreme Court to Apply Proper First Amendment Standard in NRA Case

Retrieved on:

Tuesday, January 16, 2024

Speech, NRA, Financial services, Social media, Fifth, Fabio Vullo, Supreme, Insurance, Freedom, Second, First, Pressure, Judge, Coercion, Supreme court, Constitutional right, NCLA, Constitution, The Administrative State

Vullo issued statements effectively threatening to punish banks and insurers via regulatory action if they kept doing business with NRA.

Key Points:

Vullo issued statements effectively threatening to punish banks and insurers via regulatory action if they kept doing business with NRA.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Vullo did not “coerce” the banks and insurance companies to end their relationships with NRA.
Even if the Supreme Court uses the “coercion” test rather than the constitutionally proper “abridgement” standard, NRA has effectively demonstrated that Vullo “coerced” third parties to cut ties with the organization based on its Second Amendment advocacy.
NCLA is a national leader in the ongoing battle against the First Amendment violations by the Administrative State.

NCLA Amicus Brief Encourages Supreme Court to Hear Case Against FCC’s Universal Service Fund

Retrieved on:

Thursday, November 30, 2023

Policy, Universal Service Fund, Federal, Telecommunications Act, Telecommunications, Executive (government), Supreme court, Court, NCLA, Constitution, Congress, Consumer, Supreme, The Administrative State, Federal Communications Commission, Information services, FCC, USF

However, Congress wrote an evolving and open-ended statute, leaving FCC to set and then rewrite its own policies for the Universal Service Fund (USF) and to fund the program without limit through fees that escape Congressional oversight.

Key Points:

However, Congress wrote an evolving and open-ended statute, leaving FCC to set and then rewrite its own policies for the Universal Service Fund (USF) and to fund the program without limit through fees that escape Congressional oversight.
Today, the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed an amicus curiae brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case of Consumers’ Research v. FCC, overturn this unconstitutional arrangement, and correct the enfeebled “nondelegation” doctrine that has enabled it.
The Supreme Court should grant certiorari in this case and once again restrict legislative power to Congress—where it belongs.
By relinquishing its power of the purse, FCC has gone rogue and has unconstitutionally taxed the American people to the tune of $10 billion dollars annually to fund its Universal Service Fund.

NCLA Amicus Brief Asks Supreme Court to Hear Case Challenging NLRB’s Unfair Injunction Standard

Retrieved on:

Tuesday, November 7, 2023

The New Civil Liberties Alliance has filed an amicus curiae brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney case, reverse the Sixth Circuit’s error, and overturn the injunction.

Key Points:

The New Civil Liberties Alliance has filed an amicus curiae brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney case, reverse the Sixth Circuit’s error, and overturn the injunction.
Yet, five federal circuit courts, including the Sixth Circuit, apply a far more relaxed standard when NLRB seeks a preliminary injunction against an employer.
This judge-made departure from the usual preliminary injunction standard amounts to systematic judicial bias in favor of injunctions being sought by NLRB.
NCLA asks the Supreme Court to eliminate this coercive dynamic, which exemplifies many deep-seated problems in the Administrative State.

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear NCLA Case Against ATF’s Unilateral Bump-Stock Ban

Retrieved on:

Friday, November 3, 2023

Sokolow et al v. Palestine Liberation Organization et al, Supreme court, ATF, United States Department of Commerce, Judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Social media, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Bump stock, Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. Galioto, Solicitor, NCLA, Garland v. Gonzalez, Congress, Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, Tobacco, Commerce, Court, Federation, Firearm, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Bureau, Law of the United Kingdom, The Administrative State, Speech, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, The Final Rule, United States courts of appeals, Trump, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Fifth, Army, Administration, En banc, Constitution, Same-sex marriage in the Sixth Circuit, Supreme, Cargill

Today, the Court granted the government’s request for a writ of certiorari in NCLA’s challenge to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ unilateral bump-stock ban.

Key Points:

Today, the Court granted the government’s request for a writ of certiorari in NCLA’s challenge to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ unilateral bump-stock ban.
Garland v. Cargill will be NCLA’s fourth case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in under 2 years.
As these cases show, we will fight all the way to the Supreme Court to protect civil liberties from federal agencies’ attacks.
We are confident the U.S. Supreme Court will right this wrong for Michael Cargill and all Americans.”

SEC Surrenders to NCLA Client Michelle Cochran in Wake of Her Unanimous Supreme Court Win

Retrieved on:

Wednesday, September 27, 2023

Supreme, The Administrative State, Court of cassation, High court, ALJ, Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Government, Fifth, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Administration, Supreme court, Constitution, Seventh Amendment, Law of the United Kingdom, NCLA, Security (finance)

]” NCLA celebrates this major victory with our client, whose valiant fight against Administrative State overreach achieved watershed reform at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Key Points:

]” NCLA celebrates this major victory with our client, whose valiant fight against Administrative State overreach achieved watershed reform at the U.S. Supreme Court.
In April 2023, Ms. Cochran unanimously won her argument at the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that she could bring “fundamental, even existential” constitutional challenges in federal court before enduring administrative adjudication.
That order followed a disturbing court filing over a year earlier, in April 2022, while Ms. Cochran’s case was pending at the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately for the SEC, NCLA does not plan to let it off the hook so easily.

NCLA Asks Federal Court to Halt Illegitimate U.S. Dep’t of Transportation Administrative Proceeding

Retrieved on:

Monday, August 28, 2023

Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, The Administrative State, Department of transportation, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, District court, DOT, Police, PHMSA, NCLA, Same-sex marriage in the Sixth Circuit, John Davis (U.S. district court judge), Constitution, Seventh, Pharmaceutical industry

DOT’s in-house administrative adjudicators are further illegitimate under Article II of the Constitution because they are not appointed by the President or DOT Secretary and are improperly shielded from presidential removal.

Key Points:

DOT’s in-house administrative adjudicators are further illegitimate under Article II of the Constitution because they are not appointed by the President or DOT Secretary and are improperly shielded from presidential removal.
Such tribunals cannot exercise judicial power to adjudicate DOT’s claims because Article III of the Constitution vests such power exclusively in federal courts.
NCLA has established a strong track record fighting unconstitutional adjudication regimes within the Administrative State, including at DOT.
Yet, DOT and other administrative agencies routinely act as prosecutor, judge, and jury against Americans whom they accuse of breaking the law.

NCLA Amicus Brief Calls on Fifth Circuit to End FCC’s Unlawful Control over Universal Service Fund

Retrieved on:

Tuesday, August 8, 2023

Telecommunications, Federal Communications Commission, Universal Service Fund, FCC, The Administrative State, USF, United States courts of appeals, En banc, Congress, School, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Fifth Circuit Four, Telecommunications Act, Telecommunications Act of 1996, NCLA, Court, Information services, Library, Internet service provider

This vague standard does not provide an adequate “intelligible principle” to limit FCC’s delegation of legislative power under the Constitution’s Vesting Clause.

Key Points:

This vague standard does not provide an adequate “intelligible principle” to limit FCC’s delegation of legislative power under the Constitution’s Vesting Clause.
NCLA released the following statements:
“The Constitution is clear when it says that the taxing and spending power is vested in Congress.
Here, Congress gave the FCC a blank check with no rules—abdicating its power to bureaucrats who are accountable to no one.
Such broad and vague delegations cut out Congress and leave the American public at the mercy of power-hungry agencies.”