Free Daily Podcast Summary
Unwritten Law: Daily Summaries Delivered
by New Civil Liberties Alliance
Unwritten Law is a podcast hosted by Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione, brought to you by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA). This show dives deep into the world of unlawful administrative power, exposing how bureaucrats operate outside the bounds of written law through informal guidance, regulatory “dark matter,” and unconstitutional agency overreach.
Latest Episodes
The most recent episodes — sign up to get AI-powered summaries of each one.
- Today20 min
Should SCOTUS Revisit Its 120-Year-Old Vaccine Precedent?
In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione discuss NCLA's Supreme Court amicus brief in Boysen v. PeaceHealth, a case asking the Court to revisit Jacobson v. Massachusetts, its landmark 1905 vaccine mandate decision.The conversation examines how Jacobson—which upheld a smallpox vaccination requirement more than a century ago—was relied upon by courts throughout the COVID-19 pandemic to uphold modern vaccine mandates. John explains why NCLA argues that today's courts have expanded Jacobson far beyond its original facts, applying it to vaccines that do not prevent transmission and to mandates carrying consequences far more severe than the modest fine at issue in the 1905 case.Mark and John also discuss the constitutional right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, the significance of natural immunity, emergency use authorizations, and why they believe the Supreme Court should clarify the limits of Jacobson now—before another public health emergency forces courts to confront these issues under crisis conditions.The episode explores why Boysen v. PeaceHealth could provide the Court with an important opportunity to define the constitutional boundaries of public health mandates for the modern era.
- 1 weeks ago22 min
Can the Government Escape Accountability for Censorship?
In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by Litigation Counsel Casey Norman to discuss NCLA's appeal in Dressen v. Flaherty, a case challenging alleged government-induced censorship during the COVID-19 pandemic.The plaintiffs include individuals who say they were censored after sharing their personal experiences with COVID-19 vaccine injuries or questioning official public health narratives. Casey explains why NCLA alleges that federal officials, working alongside outside organizations and social media platforms, pressured private companies to suppress constitutionally protected speech.The discussion focuses on the district court's dismissal of the case on standing and personal jurisdiction grounds, despite detailed allegations drawn from thousands of pages of discovery produced in Missouri v. Biden. Casey explains why NCLA believes plaintiffs should at least be allowed to conduct discovery before their claims are dismissed, and why courts should not require impossible levels of proof at the pleading stage.Mark, John, and Casey also examine the Fifth Circuit appeal, the role of the Stanford Internet Observatory and the Virality Project, Section 1985(3), and why this case could determine whether Americans have any meaningful judicial remedy when government officials allegedly pressure private platforms to censor speech.
- 1 weeks ago13 min
Can Agency Commentary Increase Your Prison Sentence?
In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by Litigation Counsel Casey Norman to discuss Beaird v. United States, a Supreme Court case that could reshape federal criminal sentencing.At issue is Stinson deference, a doctrine requiring courts to defer to the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s commentary interpreting the federal sentencing guidelines. Unlike the guidelines themselves, that commentary is never approved by Congress and never goes through notice-and-comment rulemaking—yet it can dramatically increase a defendant’s prison sentence.Casey explains why the case follows naturally from the Supreme Court’s recent decisions limiting administrative deference, including Kisor v. Wilkie and Loper Bright. The discussion explores why courts—not agencies—have the constitutional duty to interpret the law, why due process requires fair notice before liberty is taken away, and why the rule of lenity weighs against expanding criminal punishment through agency interpretation.Mark, John, and Casey also examine Article III, judicial independence, and why Beaird could become the Court’s next major administrative law decision.
- 2 weeks ago19 min
SCOTUS Special (Part 3): A Major Win for Digital Privacy
In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by NCLA Staff Attorney Andreia Trifoi to discuss the Supreme Court's landmark Fourth Amendment decision in Chatrie v. United States.The Court held that the government's collection of cell phone location history through a geofence warrant constitutes a Fourth Amendment search—a significant victory for digital privacy and one of the Court's most important Fourth Amendment decisions since Carpenter v. United States.Andreia explains how geofence warrants work, why they can sweep millions of people's location records into a single investigation, and why the Court concluded that this type of dragnet surveillance implicates constitutional protections.The discussion also explores the relationship between Chatrie and Carpenter, the future of automatic license plate reader (ALPR) litigation, Justice Gorsuch's property-based concurrence, and what the decision could mean for emerging surveillance technologies.For anyone concerned about privacy in the digital age, Chatrie represents an important reaffirmation that constitutional protections must evolve alongside modern technology.
- 2 weeks ago16 min
SCOTUS Special (Part 4): Title IX Means Sex
In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are again joined by NCLA Staff Attorney Andreia Trifoi to discuss the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J.The Court held that neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause prevents states from organizing school sports teams based on biological sex. Andreia explains why the Court looked to the ordinary meaning of “sex” when Title IX was enacted in 1972 and why the statute’s original purpose was to expand athletic opportunities for women.The discussion also focuses on Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence and NCLA’s amicus argument under the Spending Clause. Because Title IX conditions federal funding on compliance with certain requirements, states must receive clear notice of those conditions before accepting the money. Andreia explains why states agreeing to Title IX in 1972 could not have understood “sex” to include gender identity decades later.Mark, John, and Andreia also discuss the history and practical effects of Title IX, the Biden Administration’s unsuccessful attempt to expand the statute through regulation, and why federal agencies cannot rewrite the terms of Congress’s spending programs after states have already accepted them.
- 2 weeks ago26 min
SCOTUS Summer Series (Part 1): The End of Humphrey's Executor
In this special Supreme Court edition of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by NCLA Of Counsel Margot Cleveland to discuss the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Trump v. Slaughter.The Court's decision effectively ends Humphrey's Executor, the 1935 precedent that limited the President's authority to remove leaders of independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission. Margot, who authored NCLA's amicus brief supporting the President's position, explains why the decision represents one of the Court's most significant separation-of-powers rulings in decades.The discussion explores how the Court built on earlier decisions such as Seila Law, why Chief Justice Roberts described Myers v. United States as the foundational precedent for presidential removal authority, and what the decision means for the future of the administrative state.Mark, John, and Margot also examine Justice Gorsuch's concurrence, severability, the unresolved questions surrounding the Federal Reserve and the civil service, and why the Court appears to be methodically restoring presidential control over executive officers.The episode concludes with a look ahead at the next constitutional battles likely to follow in the wake of Trump v. Slaughter.
- 2 weeks ago29 min
SCOTUS Special (Part 2): The Federal Reserve Exception?
Part 2 of our Supreme Court Special.In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione are joined by NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Jacob Huebert to examine the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Cook and what it means for the Federal Reserve and presidential removal power.Although the Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter significantly expanded the President's authority to remove executive officers, Trump v. Cook stopped short of applying that reasoning to the Federal Reserve. Jacob explains why the Court emphasized the Federal Reserve's unique historical role, how Chief Justice Roberts relied on history and tradition, and why the Justices treated monetary policy differently from other executive functions.The discussion explores the government's arguments, standing, the Court's emergency-docket analysis, Justice Thomas's separate writing, and why Myers, Humphrey's Executor, and the First and Second Banks of the United States all played an important role in the Court's reasoning.Mark, John, and Jacob also discuss what constitutional questions remain unresolved, whether the Federal Reserve's regulatory powers could still face future challenges, and why Trump v. Cook may not be the final word on presidential control over independent agencies.
- 3 weeks ago14 min
Justice Thomas's Warning to Federal Agencies
In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione is joined by Staff Counsel Christian Clase to discuss a remarkable concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas in a recent Supreme Court case involving Roundup, pesticide regulation, and federal preemption.Although the Court's decision focused on whether federal law preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims, Justice Thomas used his concurrence to highlight a much broader set of constitutional concerns. His opinion raises questions about Congress's Commerce Clause authority, the constitutionality of broad delegations of power to administrative agencies, and whether federal agency actions should be capable of preempting state law at all.John and Christian examine Thomas's critique of modern administrative governance, including his concern that agencies can effectively create rules carrying civil and criminal consequences while exercising powers traditionally reserved to Congress.The discussion also explores Thomas's argument that agency action does not fit neatly within the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, why he views administrative preemption as constitutionally suspect, and how his opinion may serve as a roadmap for future constitutional challenges.The episode offers a deep dive into one of the most important administrative law concurrences of the term and what it could mean for the future of agency power.
About Unwritten Law
Unwritten Law is a podcast hosted by Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione, brought to you by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA). This show dives deep into the world of unlawful administrative power, exposing how bureaucrats operate outside the bounds of written law through informal guidance, regulatory “dark matter,” and unconstitutional agency overreach.
Customized Recaps
AI-powered recaps with compact key takeaways, quotes, and insights.
Straight to Your Inbox
Get key takeaways from Unwritten Law in a 5-minute read.
Save Hours Every Week
Stay current on your favorite podcasts without falling behind.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Podzilla's Unwritten Law daily summary?
It's a free AI-powered email that summarizes new episodes of Unwritten Law as soon as they're published. You get the key takeaways, notable quotes, and links & mentions — all in a quick read.
How does the Unwritten Law podcast summary work?
When a new episode drops, our AI transcribes and analyzes it, then generates a personalized summary tailored to your interests and profession. It's delivered to your inbox every morning.
Is this an official Unwritten Law product?
No. Podzilla is an independent service that summarizes publicly available podcast content. We're not affiliated with or endorsed by New Civil Liberties Alliance.
Can I get summaries of other podcasts too?
Absolutely! The free plan covers up to 3 podcasts. Upgrade to Pro for 15, or Premium for 50. Browse our full catalog at /podcasts.
What topics does Unwritten Law cover?
Unwritten Law covers topics including News, Business, Government, Politics. Our AI identifies the specific themes in each episode and highlights what matters most to you.
Start getting Unwritten Law summaries tomorrow morning.
Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.
Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.