Public policy made simple. Dive into our information hub today!

New Civil Liberties Alliance

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
New Civil Liberties Alliance
Basic facts
Location:Washington, D.C.
Founder(s):Philip Hamburger
Year founded:2017
Website:Official website

The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) is a public interest, pro bono law firm with a focus on the administrative state. Founded in 2017 by Columbia Law School professor Philip Hamburger, the NCLA aims, according to its website, to advance freedom of speech, trial by jury, and due process.[1][2]

Mission

According to its website, the New Civil Liberties Alliance has the following mission:[3]

“ The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) protects constitutional liberties from systemic threats, primarily the administrative state. In opposition to the administrative usurpation of legislative and judicial powers, NCLA defends the freedom of Americans to live under state and federal laws enacted by their elected representatives and their right to have these laws enforced against them in courts with impartial judges. It asserts their right to juries and the due process of law. NCLA demands that judges exercise independent and unbiased judgment without deferring to administrative agencies. Concerned about the growing administrative control of speech, NCLA defends the freedom of Americans to inquire, speak, and publish freely, unrestrained by prior administrative licensing and other administrative restrictions. Most expansively, NCLA urges Americans to recognize the administrative threat and join a civil liberties movement against it.[4] ”

Work

Possible 2018 U.S. Supreme Court nominees' views on the administrative state

In July 2018, the group published an assessment of potential replacements for Justice Anthony Kennedy based on how each of them approached questions about the administrative state.[1][3] To learn more about those assessments, see here.

Issues

The NCLA published a vision statement outlining its specific opposition to the administrative state:[3]

“
For over a century, administrative power has gradually displaced the Constitution’s avenues for lawmaking and justice. Although we still have a republic, there has developed within it a very different sort of government—an unlawful administrative state within the Constitution’s United States.


In the administrative vision, rights give way to unlawful power.

  • You have equal voting rights in electing lawmakers, but legislative power is surrendered to those who allegedly know better.
  • You have a right to be tried in court, before a judge and jury, except when the government proceeds against you administratively.
  • You have a right to the familiar civil and criminal burdens of proof, and all of the other procedural rights secured by the Constitution, unless the government proceeds against you administratively.
  • You have a due process right to the independent judgment of an unbiased judge, but not when administrative agency pre-determines the facts and interprets the law.
  • You have a right to the freedom of speech, without prior licensing of speakers or words, except when the government establishes administrative licensing.
  • You have a right to the benefit of lower court precedent interpreting federal statutes, unless an administrative agency adopts a different interpretation.

Because of these and other administrative threats, the New Civil Liberties Alliance believes it is time for a broad reestablishment of basic constitutional freedoms.[4]

”

Leadership

As of May 2024, the following held leadership positions with the organization:[5]

  • Mark Chenoweth, President and Chief Legal Officer
  • Philip Hamburger, Chief Executive Officer
  • Zhonette Brown, General Counsel and Senior Litigation Counsel
  • Margot Cleveland, Of Counsel
  • Mary Beth Cremer, Event Coordinator
  • Thomas Curro, Paralegal
  • Greg Dolin, Senior Litigation Counsel
  • Clegg Ivey, Director of Engagement
  • Gabe Katz, Engagement Associate
  • Daniel Kelly, Senior Litigation Counsel
  • Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel
  • Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel
  • Joe Martyak, Director of Operations
  • Ruslan Moldovanov, Deputy Director of Communications and Marketing
  • Andrew Morris, Senior Litigation Counsel
  • Casey Norman, Litigation Counsel
  • Lia Palazzo, Digital Media Strategist
  • Holly Pitt Young, Director of Development
  • Kara Rollins, Litigation Counsel
  • Russ Ryan, Senior Litigation Counsel
  • Trevor Schakohl, Communications Specialist
  • Kaitlyn Schiraldi, Staff Attorney
  • Garrett Snedeker, Staff Attorney
  • Micayla (Metzing) Stoecker, Paralegal
  • Chris Stokes, Paralegal
  • Bart Valad, Office Manager
  • John J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel
  • Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel

Noteworthy events

Case claims CFPB violates nondelegation doctrine (2019)

The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a pro bono law firm with a focus on the administrative state, on December 19 filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) on the grounds that Congress unlawfully delegated appropriations power to the agency in violation of the nondelegation doctrine.[6]

The case, Law Offices of Crystal Moroney v. Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, alleges that Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by granting the CFPB the authority to draw funding directly from the Federal Reserve. This grant of authority, according to NCLA, allows the agency to unilaterally exercise appropriations power and evade oversight from congressional appropriations committees.[6]

Fifth Circuit allows district courts to hear constitutional challenges to ALJs (2021)

See also: Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on December 21, 2021, held 9-7 in Cochran v. SEC that district courts have subject matter jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to the administrative law judges (ALJs) at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) without plaintiffs first raising those challenges during agency adjudication. Plaintiff Michelle Cochran argued that double for-cause removal protections serve to unconstitutionally insulate the SEC's ALJs from removal by the president, who has sole removal authority over federal appointees.[7]

"[I]t is possible that Cochran could ultimately wind her way through enforcement proceedings and get some later chance at judicial review," wrote Judge Catharina Haynes in the majority opinion, "but it is also possible that she could never have that opportunity, and that is enough to preserve district court jurisdiction."[7]

Federal judge expresses concern over constitutionality of ALJ proceedings (2019)

See also: Lucia v. SEC

Judge John McBryde of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas expressed concern on March 26, 2018, in his opinion for Cochran v. SEC over the constitutionality of the administrative law judges (ALJs) at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).[8]

The ALJ who presided over the Michelle Cochran’s initial adjudication proceedings before the SEC in 2016 held in favor of the agency. Cochran appealed the decision, but further action on the case was stalled as Lucia v. SEC moved through the federal courts. The Lucia case challenged the constitutionality of the SEC’s ALJ appointment process and the United States Supreme Court ultimately ruled in June 2018 that the agency's ALJ appointments violated the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause.[9]

Following the Lucia decision, the SEC reassigned all pending cases before the agency, including Cochran’s appeal, to new proceedings before a different, constitutionally appointed ALJ.[9]

Cochran filed for injunctive relief against the agency proceedings in district court, claiming that the SEC’s ALJs remained unconstitutionally appointed despite ratification by the agency’s commissioners. Cochran argued that the SEC's ALJs remained unconstitutional because they can only be removed for cause by members of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), who themselves can only be removed for cause by the president. She claimed that the double for-cause removal protections serve to unconstitutionally insulate ALJs from removal by the president, who has sole removal authority over federal appointees.[9][10]

McBryde dismissed the case due to the court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction. However, he expressed concern over the constitutionality of the SEC’s ALJs in his opinion, stating, "The court is deeply concerned with the fact that plaintiff has been subjected to extensive proceedings before an ALJ who was not constitutionally appointed and contends that the one she must now face for further, undoubtedly extended, proceedings likewise is unconstitutionally appointed.”[10]

The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a pro bono law firm with a focus on the administrative state, stated that it will appeal Cochran's case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[8]

Lawsuit challenging constitutionality of SEC ALJ cause removal protections (2018-2019)

The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a pro bono law firm with a focus on the administrative state, filed a lawsuit on November 28, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California aimed at preventing Raymond Lucia, the plaintiff in Lucia v. SEC, from being required to submit to new adjudication proceedings before an administrative law judge (ALJ) at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). NCLA also requested a stay in Lucia's proceeding by the SEC ALJ assigned to his rehearing.[11]

NCLA claims that SEC ALJs continue to function in an unconstitutional capacity despite the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Lucia v. SEC, which held that ALJs are officers of the United States subject to the Appointments Clause. ALJs' cause removal protections, according to NCLA, violate the Constitution's requirement that all officers of the United States must be removable by the president.[11]

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California held a hearing in the case on March 22, 2019. Judge Dana Sabraw dismissed the case on August 21, 2019, claiming that the court lacked jurisdiction to move forward.[12][13][14][15]

The SEC denied Lucia's request for a stay in proceedings on July 15, 2019.[16]

NCLA on December 4, 2019, filed a motion with the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit asking the court to enjoin Lucia's administrative proceedings before the SEC until the court can determine whether it has jurisdiction to rule on NLCA's claim that the ALJs of the SEC have unconstitutional removal protections.[15]

NCLA files lawsuit challenging unconstitutional use of automated license plate readers (2018)

NCLA filed a lawsuit on October 23, 2018, arguing that the use of automated license plate readers (ALRP) by the City of Coral Gables, Florida, violates Florida law and citizens’ right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment.[8]

The lawsuit alleges that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) never crafted administrative rules to govern the use of ALPR technology. Instead, the state agency allowed local law enforcement to use ALPR systems without placing limits on the scope or use of the collected data. NCLA claims that ALPR technology has allowed local law enforcement to violate the Fourth Amendment by monitoring the vehicular movement of private citizens without first obtaining a warrant for probable cause.[8]

"I am not opposed to modern technology being used to safeguard our community and identify and capture criminals,” stated Raul Mas Canosa, the plaintiff in the case. "Unfortunately, the system that Coral Gables has implemented does not discriminate between innocent citizens and lawbreakers.”[8]

NCLA filed the lawsuit in Florida's 11th Circuit Court against the City of Coral Gables, the FDLE, and the Florida Department of State.[17]

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms 'New Civil Liberties Alliance'. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

New Civil Liberties Alliance - Google News

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 New Civil Liberties Alliance, "Home," accessed July 9, 2018 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "NCLA" defined multiple times with different content
  2. ↑ LinkedIn, "New Civil Liberties Alliance," accessed July 9, 2018
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 New Civil Liberties Alliance, "About the Organization," accessed July 9, 2018
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  5. ↑ New Civil Liberties Alliance, "Our Team," accessed May 30, 2024
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 New Civil Liberties Alliance, "NCLA Lawsuit Says CFPB Is Funded Unconstitutionally—Congress Cannot Divest Legislative Power," December 19, 2019
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, "Cochran v. SEC," December 21, 2021
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Global News Wire, "Texas Federal Judge Expresses ‘Deep Concern’ with Potentially Unconstitutional ALJ Proceedings for NCLA Client," March 26, 2019 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "press" defined multiple times with different content
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, "Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief," January 18, 2019
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 'United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, "Cochran v. SEC, "March 26, 2019
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 PR Newswire, "NCLA Files Suit Over Unconstitutional SEC Appointees," November 29, 2018
  12. ↑ Law360, "Lucia's Latest ALJ Fight Thrown Out Of Federal Court," August 22, 2019
  13. ↑ The San Diego Union-Tribune, "Ray Lucia's battle against the powerful Securities and Exchange Commission begins again," February 6, 2019
  14. ↑ United States District Court for the Southern District of California, "PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT," July 10, 2019
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 New Civil Liberties Alliance, "NCLA Asks Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to Halt Unconstitutional SEC Hearing," December 4, 2019
  16. ↑ United States Securities and Exchange Commission, "In the Matter of Raymond J. Lucia Companies Inc. and Raymond J. Lucia Sr., Order," July 15, 2019
  17. ↑ CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, "Filing # 78955308," October 23, 2018
v • e
The Administrative State
MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
Pillars
Reporting
Laws
Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Cases
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
Terms
Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
Bibliography
Agencies
v • e
Influencers
MainInfluencer Project Badge.png
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=New_Civil_Liberties_Alliance&oldid=9569662"