NCLA Advocates for Supreme Court to Reassess Jurisdiction in Constitutional Law Cases
NCLA to SCOTUS: Overturn Precedent Limiting Court Jurisdiction in Constitutional Challenges to Laws
Benzinga
Image: Benzinga
The New Civil Liberties Alliance has filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn precedent limiting jurisdiction in constitutional challenges, specifically regarding the Veterans' Judicial Review Act. They argue that such challenges should be heard in Article III courts, not administrative tribunals.
- 01The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) filed an amicus brief in the case Floyd D. Johnson v. U.S. Congress, focusing on jurisdictional issues related to constitutional challenges.
- 02NCLA argues that the Veterans' Judicial Review Act does not mandate that constitutional challenges be heard in administrative tribunals.
- 03The brief cites 150 years of legislative history showing Congress has consistently directed constitutional challenges to be heard in Article III courts.
- 04NCLA seeks to overturn the Supreme Court's 1994 ruling in Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, which they claim misapplies jurisdictional principles.
- 05Statements from NCLA officials emphasize the lack of expertise in administrative tribunals for handling constitutional questions.
Advertisement
In-Article Ad
On June 8, 2026, the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) submitted an amicus curiae brief in the case of Floyd D. Johnson v. U.S. Congress, advocating for a re-evaluation of the jurisdictional limitations imposed on constitutional challenges to federal laws. The case involves Johnson, a disabled veteran, who claims that part of the Veterans' Judicial Review Act of 1988 (VJRA) is unconstitutional. The NCLA contends that the Eleventh Circuit's ruling, which requires constitutional challenges to be heard first in administrative tribunals, contradicts the VJRA's text and the Constitution's delegation of judicial power to Article III courts. NCLA's brief highlights a historical precedent of over 150 years where Congress has directed such challenges to Article III courts rather than administrative bodies. They argue that previous Supreme Court decisions, particularly Thunder Basin and Elgin, failed to consider this statutory history and should be overturned. NCLA officials assert that administrative law judges lack the necessary expertise to resolve constitutional issues, underscoring the need for these cases to be adjudicated by real judges in federal courts.
Advertisement
In-Article Ad
The outcome of this case could redefine how veterans and others can challenge federal laws, potentially expediting access to judicial review.
Advertisement
In-Article Ad
Reader Poll
Do you believe constitutional challenges should be heard in Article III courts?
Connecting to poll...
Read the original article
Visit the source for the complete story.