New Civil Liberties Alliance

The FBI busted down the wrong door—and now the innocent family has no recourse. In Martin v. United States, a SWAT team raided Curtrina Martin’s home before dawn, detonating flash grenades and holding her at gunpoint—all because an agent failed to check a clearly marked address. Her family sued, but the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the case, claiming the agents’ actions were a “discretionary function” and granting the government total immunity. That’s not how the law works. Congress specifically amended the FTCA in 1974 to allow innocent families to sue for wrong-house raids. The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling nullifies that protection, leaving victims with nowhere to turn. With Bivens relief all but gone, the FTCA is the only remaining path for justice. We just filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court urging it to fix this. If federal agents can dodge liability for something as basic as reading an address, no one is safe in their home. More: https://lnkd.in/g6_3XxXK

CPSC is playing fast and loose with the law—and infant products are on the line. The agency is trying to regulate thousands of textile-based baby products under a fast-track rule meant for durable goods like cribs and strollers. That’s not how the law works. We just asked the D.C. Circuit to block CPSC’s unlawful power grab. Our client, Heroes Technology, makes the Snuggle Me Infant Lounger—an organic cotton and polyester fiber product that parents trust. But instead of following Congress’s required process for textile-based safety standards, CPSC invented a new category—“infant support cushions”—and applied a sweeping, one-size-fits-all rule. This isn’t about whether CPSC can regulate these products. It’s about how Congress said they must do it. Since we convinced the Supreme Court to overturn Chevron last year, CPSC doesn’t get to rewrite the law. The agency rushed this rule without real justification or proper review, ignoring concerns about small businesses, compliance costs, and unintended safety risks. That’s not “reasoned decisionmaking”—it’s arbitrary and capricious. The court should hit pause before this unlawful rule forces trusted products off the market. More: https://lnkd.in/dd5EKWhu

Ninth Circuit Reconsiders Vaccine Mandate Case—We Weighed In The Ninth Circuit is taking another look at a major lawsuit challenging the Los Angeles Unified School District’s Covid-19 vaccine mandate for employees. We filed an amicus brief urging the en banc court to affirm what a three-judge panel already recognized: the Supreme Court’s Jacobson v. Massachusetts decision only applies to vaccines that prevent disease transmission. For too long, courts rubber-stamped vaccine mandates without asking whether the shots actually stopped the spread. But Covid-19 vaccines never did. Even manufacturers admitted as much. That means the government had no legal basis to fire employees who declined the shot. The Ninth Circuit panel got it right—Jacobson doesn’t justify forcing medical interventions just because the government thinks they’re beneficial. Now, the full court must decide whether to uphold that commonsense ruling and reinforce constitutional limits on government power. More: https://lnkd.in/gqxbQh6D

The President’s Power to Fire Stands—The D.C. Circuit Just Confirmed It A federal district judge tried to stop the President from removing a top executive official. But the D.C. Circuit just put an end to that overreach. The court’s decision means Hampton Dellinger is out, just as the President directed. After the ruling, Dellinger announced he would abandon his lawsuit. The Constitution vests all executive power in the President—including the authority to remove principal officers. The Supreme Court has affirmed this power time and again, recognizing that the President must be able to fire top officials to ensure his administration follows the law. A single judge doesn’t get to rewrite the separation of powers. This case was never about one official—it was about preserving the President’s constitutional authority. The D.C. Circuit’s ruling restores that balance. A rogue district court cannot dictate who serves in the executive branch. The law is clear: The President, not unelected judges, holds that power. More: https://lnkd.in/dwAuKEjR

?? The Corporate Transparency Act is still unconstitutional—no matter what Treasury says. ?? https://lnkd.in/gSD2W8MA The government now admits it won’t enforce the CTA against U.S. citizens and companies, but that’s not enough. This law still exceeds Congress’s authority, and the Fifth Circuit must keep the injunction in place. NCLA’s amicus brief explains why: Incorporation is not economic activity, and the Commerce Clause doesn’t give Congress a blank check to regulate every business or nonprofit in America. ???? Americans shouldn’t face civil or criminal penalties just for existing. If the government can force 30 million organizations to hand over sensitive information simply because they incorporated under state law, then no limit remains on federal power. That’s why we’re urging the Fifth Circuit to uphold the injunction and stop this unlawful mandate. ?????

?? NCLA’s 100th Case Takes the Leap for Liberty! ?? For our milestone 100th case, NCLA is challenging the National Park Service’s unlawful criminalization of BASE jumping. https://lnkd.in/g8MPtSDu Congress never banned this sport—NPS did. By twisting an old cargo delivery rule into a blanket prohibition, the agency has turned law-abiding athletes into criminals, threatening them with jail time and hefty fines. But here’s the kicker: NPS allows similar aerial sports like hang gliding while singling out BASE jumpers for punishment. That’s unconstitutional, and exactly why we’re taking them to court. This case isn’t just about BASE jumping—it’s about who gets to write criminal laws. The Constitution says that power belongs to Congress, not unelected bureaucrats making it up as they go. ?? We took this fight to the Supreme Court last summer and won. Now, we’re back to remind NPS that criminal law isn’t their playground. 100 cases in, and we’re still soaring! ??

?? Court Blocks Biden’s Student Loan Scheme—NCLA Applauds Missouri v. Trump Ruling! ?? https://lnkd.in/gXbteXDh The Eighth Circuit just slammed the brakes on Biden’s unlawful student loan cancellation—blocking the entire “SAVE” scheme and an attempted workaround. In Missouri v. Trump (formerly Missouri v. Biden), the court upheld and expanded a preliminary injunction, stopping the Department of Education from wiping out $475 billion ?? in student loans. NCLA has long called out this unconstitutional power grab, and now the court agrees: the Executive Branch can’t rewrite laws Congress never passed. Federal law allows income-based repayment, but not blanket loan forgiveness ??. The Department twisted a 1993 statute into an all-access pass for mass debt cancellation—something Congress explicitly rejected. The Eighth Circuit saw through it, noting that if Biden’s argument were valid, programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness wouldn’t have been needed. This ruling shuts down an unlawful attempt to erase student debt at taxpayers’ expense. NCLA fought to make this happen, urging states to act and exposing SAVE’s illegality. Missouri v. Trump delivers a major victory against unchecked executive power—now let’s make sure everyone hears about it. ????

?? FCC is acting like a legislative body—and that’s a problem. NCLA has filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to stop the agency from rewriting its own policies and setting its own funding for the Universal Service Fund (USF). https://lnkd.in/g8XTkdYk Congress, not unelected bureaucrats, has the sole power to tax Americans. ?? It’s time to reinvigorate the nondelegation doctrine and return legislative authority to where the Constitution says it belongs. For decades, the FCC has been given broad discretion to determine what “universal” telecommunications services should be funded—on an “evolving” basis—without clear limits from Congress. Last year, the Fifth Circuit ruled that this delegation of legislative power was unconstitutional, a decision NCLA supported in an earlier brief. Now, the Supreme Court has a chance to reinforce this ruling and prevent agencies from continuing to expand their own power at the expense of Americans’ liberties. ?? The Supreme Court has never endorsed the idea that vague phrases like “public interest” give agencies unlimited authority. The Justices should use this case to set a clear standard: Congress must provide real guidance before an agency can interfere with individual liberties. ? If the Court fails to act, agencies like the FCC will keep treating legislative power as their own—undermining constitutional limits and trampling Americans’ freedoms.

?? Texas's Attorney General thinks he can force companies to hand over their records—no warrant, no limits, just because he says so. But the Constitution doesn’t allow general warrants, and NCLA is urging the Fifth Circuit to uphold a ruling that Texas’s “Right to Examine” statute is unconstitutional. https://lnkd.in/gyE5XMk5 This law lets the AG demand business records from any company operating in Texas under threat of criminal penalties and forced closure. That’s not due process—it’s an abuse of power. ?? Texas’s law is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. As NCLA argues, “a warrant is literally all form and no substance” if it comes after the demand for records. This law gives the AG unchecked access to private business documents without a warrant, without probable cause, and without judicial oversight. No official—state or federal—should have that kind of authority. ?? “General warrants destroy the constitutionally-protected right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures,” says NCLA’s Daniel Kelly. The Fifth Circuit must put an end to this executive misuse of power. If Texas wants to investigate businesses, it must follow the same rules that apply to every other law enforcement agency—get a warrant first.

?? Victory for Due Process! ?? After a grueling six-year legal battle, NCLA has secured a favorable resolution for Dr. Mukund Vengalattore in his Title IX lawsuit against Cornell University. https://lnkd.in/gTPi7CNk When a disgruntled student’s false accusations derailed his tenure bid, Cornell fell in line with the federal government’s flawed Title IX policies, disregarding due process. But NCLA fought back—defeating summary judgment, winning on appeal, and ensuring his case saw the light of day. This fight was about more than one professor. The Second Circuit’s ruling confirmed that Title IX protects faculty from gender discrimination too—a major precedent for due process in higher education. Dr. Vengalattore’s courage and perseverance have reshaped the legal landscape, forcing universities to think twice before blindly following unlawful federal mandates. We applaud Dr. Vengalattore for standing firm and look forward to seeing him continue his academic career. The fight for fairness isn’t over, but victories like this show that due process can—and must—prevail.