New Civil Liberties Alliance
| Formation | 2017 |
|---|---|
| Founder | Philip Hamburger |
| Type | Nonprofit |
| Purpose | "To protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State" |
| Headquarters | Washington, D.C. |
| Location |
|
| Methods | Legal advocacy |
President and Chief Legal Officer | Mark Chenoweth |
Revenue (2022) | $4.82 million[1] |
| Staff | 27 (2024)[1] |
| Website | nclalegal |
New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit public interest law firm[citation needed] founded in 2017 by Columbia Law School professor Philip Hamburger. The group challenges what it views as unlawful uses of administrative power. 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]
Bloomberg Law wrote 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
[edit]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][2][3]
Cases
[edit]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.[4] 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.[5]
The NCLA challenged President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness plan, arguing that "A forgiveness program of this magnitude should have gone through rulemaking."[6] 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. [7]
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.[8] 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.[9]
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.[3] In the 2024 decision Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (in which NCLA represented the Rhode Island plaintiffs[3]), the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Chevron deference.
See also
[edit]- West Virginia v. EPA (2022)
- Cargill v. Garland (2023)
References
[edit]- ^ a b c d e f g h Wheeler, Lydia (January 26, 2024), "Big Donors Back New Group to Fight 'Deep State' at Supreme Court", Bloomberg Law website, retrieved 5 March 2024
- ^ 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
- ^ a b c 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
- ^ Raymond, Nate (August 2, 2023), "Priest asks US Supreme Court to bar SEC penalty on free speech grounds", Reuters website
- ^ Thomas, David (September 7, 2023). "Lawyers say exam shows 96-year-old US appeals judge still fit to serve". Reuters.
- ^ Douglas-Gabriel, Danielle (7 August 2023). "Biden's student loan forgiveness plan faces new lawsuit to block program". Washington Post. Retrieved 5 March 2024.
- ^ Lonas, Lexi (4 August 2023). "Lawsuit filed to stop new student debt relief plan". The Hill. Retrieved 5 March 2024.
- ^ "Murthy, et al. v. Missouri, et al. (f/k/a Missouri, et al. v. Biden, et al.)". New Civil Liberties Alliance. August 2, 2022.
- ^ 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)