Administrative Static Podcast Administrative Static

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.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 in the NCLA case of Garland v. Cargill that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ unilateral bump-stock ban conflicts with the federal statute defining “machineguns.”

ATF’s regulatory ban, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit shot down early last year, reversed the agency’s own long-standing recognition that bump-stock-equipped firearms are not machine guns.

NCLA commends the high court for permanently setting ATF’s ban aside, safeguarding the rights of our client Michael Cargill and hundreds of thousands of other Americans to be free from laws written by executive branch bureaucrats instead of elected members of Congress.

Mark, John, and Jenin celebrate this victory and dive into the case and the meaning of "machineguns" in this latest episode.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 in the NCLA case of Garland v. Cargill that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ unilateral bump-stock ban conflicts with the federal statute defining “machineguns.”

ATF’s regulatory ban, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit shot down early last year, reversed the agency’s own long-standing recognition that bump-stock-equipped firearms are not machine guns.

NCLA commends the high court for permanently setting ATF’s ban aside, safeguarding the rights of our client Michael Cargill and hundreds of thousands of other Americans to be free from laws written by executive branch bureaucrats instead of elected members of Congress.

Mark and John celebrate this historic victory in this latest episode.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We awarded Drs. Azadeh Khatibi, Tracy Høeg, Ram Duriseti, Aaron Kheriaty, and Pete Mazolewski NCLA’s Award for Client Bravery. NCLA represented these courageous doctors in the successful Høeg v. Newsom suit challenging a California state law that would have subjected them to discipline for sharing information with patients that departed from the “contemporary scientific consensus” on Covid-19. Gov. Newsom signed a bill to repeal the law, marking a major victory for our clients, free speech, and medical liberty.

NCLA also presented a “Georgie” award (a bust of George Washington) to Latham & Watkins partner Roman Martinez for outstanding service to NCLA and our clients. He delivered oral argument to the Supreme Court in January in our Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce case against the unconstitutional Chevron doctrine.

The Buckeye Institute Director of Litigation David Tryon and Legal Fellow Alex Certo took home the Georgie for Best Amicus Brief, while A. Gregory Grimsal received the Best Local Counsel Award.

NCLA recognized the winner of its Student Note Competition, Matthew Lambertson of the University of Florida’s Levin Law School, who earned a $10,000 prize to be split with the Florida Law Review for his illuminating publication entitled: “The Common Law and SEC Rule 10b-5(b): Narrowing the Securities ‘Fraud’ Exception to the First Amendment.”

Finally, NCLA honored newly retired former Senior Litigation Counsel Richard Samp with the Cincinnatus Award, celebrating his illustrious 30-plus-year career defending justice in our Republic.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We discuss Mark's recent column in Forbes: a brief review of five pending SCOTUS cases: (1) SEC v. Jarkesy; (2) Relentless v. Department of Commerce/ Loper Bright v. Raimondo; (3) Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve; (4) Garland v. Cargill; and (5) Starbucks v. McKinney. 

Administrative statists have floated a false narrative about the many indisputably important administrative law cases pending at the U.S. Supreme Court this term. With at least half a dozen such cases still awaiting decision by month’s end, it promises to be a watershed year.

Greater freedom and constitutional restoration appear to be in the offing, which may explain the liberal meltdown that has already begun. Before the Supreme Court (erroneously) upheld the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding mechanism last month, some commentators on the left were proclaiming that a decision leaving Congress to appropriate annual funds to the CFPB would trigger a second Great Depression.

Similarly absurd claims have abounded about the remaining undecided cases, so it is time to set the record straight lest bureaucratic caterwauling lead the Court further astray.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.