Sign Up

NCLA Site Search

Cases

MoveCorp v. Small Business Administration

CASE SUMMARY

Did we achieve our litigation objective? Yes, the client was allowed to apply for and did receive a PPP loan.

Court Outcome: After the SBA altered its rule and the client as able to apply for and receive a PPP loan, the district court dismissed the case as moot.

Larger Impact: Congress never gave the SBA authority to implement a Criminal History Rule. SBA was forced to amend its rule to avoid exceeding the authority Congress granted to it.

Summary: NCLA represented Michael Loughrey, the majority owner of MoveCorp, a moving company serving local business clients in Austin, Texas. The Small Business Administration (SBA) unlawfully denied Mr. Loughrey’s application for a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act by virtue of SBA’s unlawful “Criminal History Rule” exlcuding all persons indicted or charged of any crime.

Employing more than 40 people on payroll, Mr. Loughrey applied for much-needed federal assistance to keep his business afloat, but SBA’s PPP Criminal History Rule unlawfully disqualified him, completely disregarding the intent of Congress to make loans available to all small businesses expeditiously during a national crisis. In 2019, Mr. Loughrey was arrested for driving while intoxicated. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Texas shut down its state courts, thus preventing Mr. Loughrey from defending himself against this misdemeanor charge before the deadline to apply for PPP loans was set to arrive June 30, 2020. Ironically, a guilty conviction for the misdemeanor charge would have made Mr. Loughrey’s company eligible for the PPP, but because he was locked out of court, SBA refused to guarantee his loan.

Congress tasked SBA with managing the PPP loans—$659,000,000,000 in total—for businesses with fewer than 500 employees. Under the CARES Act, Mr. Loughrey was fully eligible to receive the loan. NCLA argued that SBA exceeded the statutory authority that Congress delegated to the agency. The lawsuit challenged unlawful portions of SBA’s Interim Final Rule purporting to implement PPP, and it called out the agency’s Criminal History Rule as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of power.

OUR CLIENT

Plaintiff Michael Loughrey (center) and employees of MoveCorp

OUR TEAM

John J. Vecchione
Senior Litigation Counsel

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Order to Dismiss and Memorandum Opinion

July 26, 2021 | Read More

Reply in Further Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

January 25, 2021 | Read More

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

December 21, 2020 | Read More

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

June 25, 2020 | Read More

PRESS RELEASES

NCLA Brings Second Lawsuit Against SBA’s Unlawful Criminal History Rule for PPP Loans

June 26, 2020

RELATED CASES
  • Adir International v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: California

    View Case
  • American Home Furnishings Alliance, et al. v. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 30, 2023

    Agencies: Consumer Product Safety Commission

    View Case
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Walther, Dir., and Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    View Case
  • American Hospital Association, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al.

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 15, 2022

    Agencies: Department of Health and Human Services

    View Case
  • American Securities Association and Citadel Securities LLC v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Administrative Speech Controls

    The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

    Unreasonable Searches

    The Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless searches and seizures of information, yet the Administrative State violates this right to privacy through administrative subpoenas and warrants, automated information collection devices, civil investigative demands, and “voluntary” requests for information.

    Conditions on Spending

    Administrative agencies use unconstitutional conditions on spending to regulate the conduct of grantees. Rather than rule through law, the government simply purchases submission.

    Case Active - February 15, 2024

    Agencies: Securities and Exchange Commission

    View Case
  • AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC and FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Federal Trade Commission

    View Case

SHARE THIS CASE

Enter your email address above to be notified whenever we post a new document to this case.