Administrative Static Podcast Administrative Static

As we anticipate the Supreme Court's decision in Murthy v. Missouri, NCLA's Jenin Younes has filed a motion in district court citing Congressional testimony revealing that Senior Advisor Dr. David Morens and Dr. Anthony Fauci used personal email accounts to evade Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests during the pandemic.

Mark and Jenin delve into the details of this motion in their latest episode.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

NCLA has filed a joint opening brief in National Center for Public Policy Research v. SEC, urging the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down new SEC rules requiring extensive climate-related disclosures by public companies. This challenge is combined with U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. SEC, where Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP represents the petitioners. NCLA represents the National Center for Public Policy Research alongside the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Texas Association of Business, and Longview Chamber of Commerce, arguing against the SEC's unconstitutional push for climate activism at the expense of civil liberties.

Mark, Jenin, and Senior Litigation Counsel Andrew Morris discuss the case in their latest episode.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

NCLA has filed an amicus curiae brief urging the Supreme Court to consider Chestek PLLC v. Vidal and prevent the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from bypassing notice-and-comment rulemaking. It is crucial that rules with significant economic impact are not issued without public input or consideration of all relevant information. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision below was erroneous as it effectively nullified a statute requiring the PTO to undergo notice-and-comment procedures before establishing rules. NCLA seeks Supreme Court intervention to correct this and reinstate the PTO's mandated accountability to the public.

In their latest episode, Mark, Jenin, and Senior Litigation Counsel Greg Dolin discuss the details of the amicus brief.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

NCLA has submitted an opening brief in Powell v. SEC, urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn the SEC’s refusal to amend its long-standing "Gag Rule." The rule, in place for over five decades, prohibits individuals who settle regulatory enforcement cases with the SEC from publicly criticizing their cases, even truthfully, for life. NCLA represents SEC enforcement targets affected by this rule and media organizations seeking to report on their experiences.

After NCLA's initial petition challenging the Gag Rule was ignored for more than five years, the SEC only responded with a denial after NCLA filed a renewed petition in December. NCLA is now challenging this denial to stop the SEC from infringing on First Amendment rights.

Mark, Jenin, and Senior Litigation Counsel Peggy Little discuss the case and the detrimental impact of the SEC's Gag Rule.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has reversed a district court decision in Johnson v. Smith that upheld a Kansas state law authorizing intrusive warrantless searches for dog training and handling businesses.

NCLA filed an amicus curiae brief explaining that the warrantless-search law infringes the Appellants’ Fourth Amendment rights “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” While the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Appellants’ claim that the state law violates their right to travel, it remanded the case to the lower court to determine whether the Fourth Amendment authorizes warrantless searches of dog training and handling businesses—the issue we briefed.

In this episode, Mark and John celebrate the win and discuss the case
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 decision in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, overturning a deferential legal standard that has allowed the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to enjoin a company’s conduct without showing that it likely broke the law.

Justice Thomas authored the Court’s opinion. Justice Jackson provided a ninth vote, concurring in the judgment, but dissenting in part at a length greater than the majority decision. The Court held that federal courts may not issue preliminary injunctions unless the NLRB meets four requirements: (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) it would suffer irreparable injury absent an injunction; (3) the balance of equities favors an injunction; and (4) an injunction serves the public interest. 

Today’s decision overrules the five federal circuits that have been applying a relaxed standard when NLRB seeks a preliminary injunction, permitting it to punish an employer based on legal and factual allegations that are most likely meritless. In this episode, Mark, John, and Jenin discuss celebrate the victory and discuss the case. 
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.