NCLA Asks D.C. Circuit to Affirm that Courts Can Hear Constitutional Cases on FTC Enforcement

Core Viewpoint - The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court to hear the case Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), emphasizing the need for judicial review of agency actions that may violate constitutional rights [1][3]. Group 1: Legal Context and Precedents - The Supreme Court's ruling in April 2023 allows individuals to challenge government agencies in federal court before undergoing administrative adjudications, overturning previous circuit court decisions that limited access to judicial review [2]. - Previous Supreme Court decisions, including Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and SEC v. Jarkesy, established that district courts have jurisdiction over constitutional claims against agencies, reinforcing the right to a neutral adjudicator [3]. Group 2: Agency's Position and Critique - The FTC argues that it has jurisdiction over the case based on the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, claiming authority to enforce its Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) in court, but this position is contested as Media Matters initiated the lawsuit [3]. - NCLA critiques the FTC's attempt to manage disputes internally, arguing that such a system undermines the judicial power and the right of individuals to seek redress in court for constitutional violations [4][5]. Group 3: Statements from NCLA - NCLA representatives assert that administrative agencies cannot displace judicial power, especially in cases questioning their constitutional compliance, and emphasize the necessity for courts to address such claims promptly [4]. - The organization expresses concern over the current administration's resistance to federal district court jurisdiction, highlighting the importance of allowing defendants in agency actions to contest constitutional issues in court [5].