Unwritten Law
Unwritten Law
Podcast Description
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.
Podcast Insights
Content Themes
The podcast focuses on topics related to administrative law, constitutional rights, and legal challenges against government overreach. Episodes cover themes such as the constitutionality of vaccine mandates, the IRS's warrantless searches of financial records, and the implications of a case against the National Park Service’s regulations. Specific episode examples include discussions on Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Carvalho, Harper v. IRS, and the implications of Loper Bright and Relentless rulings on agency power.

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.
In this episode of Unwritten Law, NCLA President Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione welcome Caitlin Moyna, Senior Litigation Counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, to the podcast for the first time.
The conversation focuses on the controversial “disparate impact” liability rule in housing law and HUD’s effort to rescind it. The rule allows liability for housing practices that unintentionally affect one group more than another—even when there is no intent to discriminate.
Caitlin explains how this doctrine emerged from a series of Supreme Court cases, beginning with Griggs v. Duke Power and later extending into the housing context through Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project. The discussion explores how disparate impact liability shifted discrimination law away from intentional conduct and toward statistical outcomes.
The episode also examines how agency interpretations and judicial deference helped expand this doctrine over time—and why recent Supreme Court decisions curtailing agency deference may put its legal foundations into question.
Mark, John, and Caitlin discuss the implications of HUD rescinding the rule, why private lawsuits could still continue under the statute, and what a broader reevaluation of disparate impact liability could mean for housing, employment, lending, and other areas of federal regulation.

Disclaimer
This podcast’s information is provided for general reference and was obtained from publicly accessible sources. The Podcast Collaborative neither produces nor verifies the content, accuracy, or suitability of this podcast. Views and opinions belong solely to the podcast creators and guests.
For a complete disclaimer, please see our Full Disclaimer on the archive page. The Podcast Collaborative bears no responsibility for the podcast’s themes, language, or overall content. Listener discretion is advised. Read our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy for more details.