New Civil Liberties Alliance

Last updated
New Civil Liberties Alliance
Formation2017;7 years ago (2017)
Founder Philip Hamburger
Type Nonprofit
Purpose"To protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State"
Headquarters Washington, D.C.
Location
  • United States
MethodsLegal advocacy
President and Chief Legal Officer
Mark Chenoweth
Revenue$4.82 million [1] (in 2022)
Staff27 (2024) [1]
Website nclalegal.org

New Civil Liberties Alliance(NCLA) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit public interest law firm [2] founded in 2017 by Columbia Law School professor Philip Hamburger. The group challenges what it views as unlawful uses of administrative power.

Contents

Bloomberg Law wrote that the group was founded "to fill a gap in the legal ecosystem: the protection of individual rights from entrenched government regulation" [1] and that the group had "quickly emerged as a top US Supreme Court litigator...helping steer a broad high court challenge to government agency power." [1] In 2024, legal scholar Jonathan H. Adler said that the NCLA had "become a significant player in a relatively short time by raising some administrative law questions that hadn't been getting as much or a lot of attention." [1]

Organizational overview

The NCLA's president and chief legal officer is Mark Chenoweth. [1] The group had 27 staff members as of 2024 and received $4.82 million in revenue in 2022. [1] The NCLA has received financial support from entities affiliated with Charles Koch and Leonard Leo. [1] [3] [4]

Cases

In 2023, the NCLA filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of Emmanuel Lemelson, a hedge fund manager accused of civil securities fraud, and subsequently found liable for making statements that were untrue, but not fraudulent. [5] The petition hinged on a constitutional freedom of expression question: can the SEC "punish commentary about publicly traded corporations that contains a few purported misstatements or omissions when a jury has cleared the accused of all fraud and deception charges"?

Also in 2023, the NCLA represented Judge Pauline Newman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with respect to efforts by colleagues on the court to unilaterally suspend her from her judicial duties. The NCLA obtained expert reports indicating that the judge was fit to serve, and challenged the constitutionality of the effective removal of an Article III United States federal judge from office without due process of law. [6]

The NCLA challenged President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness plan, arguing that "A forgiveness program of this magnitude should have gone through rulemaking." [7] The NCLA argued that Biden's plan violated the Constitution's Appropriations Clause, which says Congress can decide what debt owed to the Treasury can be canceled. [8]

The NCLA, on behalf of 5 social-media users, joined several States in bringing a First Amendment case against the Biden administration, arguing that the administration had violated free speech rights by pressuring major social media platforms to remove misleading or false content about COVID-19. [9] In September 2023, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Biden administration had overstepped the First Amendment when it "coerced the platforms to make their moderation decisions by way of intimidating messages and threats of adverse consequences" and "significantly encouraged the platforms' decisions by commandeering their decision-making processes." Murthy v. Missouri was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2024. The Court ruled 6–3 that the States and social-media users lacked standing to bring suit. [10]

The NCLA argued in favor of overturning Chevron deference, a principle directing courts hearing regulatory disputes to defer to a government agency's reasonable interpretation when the governing law is ambiguous. [4] In the 2024 decision Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (in which NCLA represented the Rhode Island plaintiffs [4] ), the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Chevron deference.

See also

Related Research Articles

An administrative law judge (ALJ) in the United States is a judge and trier of fact who both presides over trials and adjudicates claims or disputes involving administrative law. ALJs can administer oaths, take testimony, rule on questions of evidence, and make factual and legal determinations.

United States Federal Administrative Law encompasses statutes, rules, judicial precedents, and executive orders, that together form administrative laws that define the extent of powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of the United States government, including executive departments and independent agencies. Because Congress, the president, and the federal courts have limited resources to address all issues, specialized powers are often delegated to a board, commission, office, or other agency. These administrative agencies oversee and monitor activities in complex areas, such as commercial aviation, medical device manufacturing, and securities markets.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Missouri</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Missouri

The Supreme Court of Missouri is the highest court in the state of Missouri. It was established in 1820 and is located at 207 West High Street in Jefferson City, Missouri. Missouri voters have approved changes in the state's constitution to give the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction – the sole legal power to hear – over five types of cases on appeal. Pursuant to Article V, Section 3 of the Missouri Constitution, these cases involve:

National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that decisions by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on how to regulate Internet service providers are eligible for Chevron deference, in which the judiciary defers to an administrative agency's expertise under its governing statutes. While the case concerned routine regulatory processes at the FCC and applied to interpretations of the Communications Act of 1934 and Telecommunications Act of 1996, the ruling has become an important precedent on the matter of regulating network neutrality in the United States.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that set forth the legal test used when U.S. federal courts must defer to a government agency's interpretation of a law or statute. The decision articulated a doctrine known as "Chevron deference". Chevron deference consisted of a two-part test that was deferential to government agencies: first, whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue at question, and second, "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute".

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), was a writ of habeas corpus petition made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba. The case underscored the essential role of habeas corpus as a safeguard against government overreach, ensuring that individuals cannot be detained indefinitely without the opportunity to challenge the legality of their detention. Guantánamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control. The case was consolidated with habeas petition Al Odah v. United States. It challenged the legality of Boumediene's detention at the United States Naval Station military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Oral arguments on the combined cases were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007.

Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), is a United States Supreme Court case that concerns the standard that the Court should apply when it reviews an executive department's interpretation of regulations established under federal legislation. The specific issue was whether sergeants and lieutenants in the St. Louis Police Department should be paid for working overtime. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established the overtime pay requirement, and the US Department of Labor issued regulations to determine if an employee was covered by the overtime requirement.

United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court that addressed the issue of when Chevron deference should be applied. In an 8–1 majority decision, the Court determined that Chevron deference applies when Congress delegated authority to the agency generally to make rules carrying the force of law.

Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that an administrative agency's interpretative rules deserve deference according to their persuasiveness. The court adopted a case-by-case test, the Skidmore deference, which considers the rulings, interpretations, and opinions of the administrator. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ketanji Brown Jackson</span> US Supreme Court justice since 2022 (born 1970)

Ketanji Onyika Brown Jackson is an American lawyer and jurist who is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Jackson was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Joe Biden on February 25, 2022, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate and sworn into office that same year. She is the first black woman and the first former federal public defender to serve on the Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terry A. Doughty</span> American judge (born 1959)

Terry Alvin Doughty is the chief United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. He served as a judge on the Fifth Judicial District Court in Louisiana from 2009 to 2018.

Kisor v. Wilkie, No. 18-15, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a US Supreme Court case related to the interpretation by an executive agency of its own ambiguous regulations. The case involved a veteran who had been denied some benefits from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs due to the agency's interpretation of its regulations. The case challenges the "Auer deference" established in the 1997 case Auer v. Robbins, in which the judiciary branch of the government normally defers to an agency's own interpretation of its own regulations in resolving matters of law. Lower courts, including the Federal Appeals Circuit Courts, ruled against the veteran, acknowledging the Auer deference.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive Order 13990</span> Executive order signed by U.S. President Joe Biden

Executive Order 13990, officially titled Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis is an executive order signed by President Joe Biden on January 20, 2021, which implements various environmental policies of his administration including revoking the permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline and temporarily prohibiting drilling in the arctic refuge.

The major questions doctrine is a principle of statutory interpretation applied in United States administrative law cases which states that courts will presume that Congress does not delegate to executive agencies issues of major political or economic significance.

Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. 477 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the forgiveness of federal student loans by the Biden administration in 2022, challenged by multiple states. The Supreme Court's ruling was issued on June 30, 2023, ruling 6–3 that the Secretary of Education did not have the power to waive student loans under the HEROES Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Andrew Bailey (politician)</span> Attorney General of Missouri

Andrew Bailey is an American attorney and politician. A Republican, he has served as Missouri Attorney General since he was appointed by Governor Mike Parson in January 2023.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), 144 S. Ct. 2244, is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in the field of administrative law, the law governing regulatory agencies. Together with its companion case, Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, it overruled the principle of Chevron deference established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), which had directed courts to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguity in a law that the agency enforces.

Garland v. VanDerStok is a pending United States Supreme Court case regarding the 2021 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) regulatory revisions of the Gun Control Act of 1986's definitions of firearm, firearm frame, and receiver. On June 30, 2023, federal District Court Judge Reed O'Connor granted a motion for summary judgment against the ATF, vacating the receiver rule nationwide on the grounds that the agency had exceeded its statutory authority.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Andrew N. Ferguson</span> U.S. lawyer and politician

Andrew N. Ferguson is an American lawyer serving since 2024 as a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. He previously served as solicitor general of Virginia from 2022 to 2024.

Murthy v. Missouri was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States involving the First Amendment, the federal government, and social media. The states of Missouri and Louisiana, led by Missouri's then Attorney General Eric Schmitt, filed suit against the U.S. government in the Western District of Louisiana. They claimed that the federal government pressured social media companies to censor conservative views and criticism of the Biden administration in violation of the right to freedom of expression. The government said it had only made requests, not demands, that social media operators remove misinformation.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Wheeler, Lydia (January 26, 2024), "Big Donors Back New Group to Fight 'Deep State' at Supreme Court", Bloomberg Law website, retrieved 5 March 2024
  2. ↑ Cassens Weiss, Debra (September 9, 2024). "Lawyer alleges 'impeachment by subterfuge' after federal appeals judge, 97, suspended for another year". ABA Journal. Retrieved 12 December 2024.
  3. ↑ VanSickle, Abbie (28 February 2024), "In Fight Over Bump Stock Ban, Lawyers Take Aim at Administrative State", The New York Times website, archived from the original on July 27, 2024, retrieved 5 March 2024
  4. 1 2 3 Liptak, Adam (15 January 2024), "A Fight Over a Fishing Regulation Could Help Tear Down the Administrative State", The New York Times website, archived from the original on October 7, 2024, retrieved 5 March 2024
  5. ↑ Raymond, Nate (August 2, 2023), "Priest asks US Supreme Court to bar SEC penalty on free speech grounds", Reuters website
  6. ↑ Thomas, David (September 7, 2023). "Lawyers say exam shows 96-year-old US appeals judge still fit to serve". Reuters .
  7. ↑ Douglas-Gabriel, Danielle (7 August 2023). "Biden's student loan forgiveness plan faces new lawsuit to block program". Washington Post. Retrieved 5 March 2024.
  8. ↑ Lonas, Lexi (4 August 2023). "Lawsuit filed to stop new student debt relief plan". The Hill. Retrieved 5 March 2024.
  9. ↑ "Murthy, et al. v. Missouri, et al. (f/k/a Missouri, et al. v. Biden, et al.)". New Civil Liberties Alliance. August 2, 2022.
  10. ↑ Fung, John Fritze, Brian (June 26, 2024). "Supreme Court allows White House to press social media companies to remove disinformation | CNN Politics". CNN.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.