Covid-19 Legal Action

CASE SUMMARY – In June, NCLA filed a complaint in Massachusetts Superior Court on behalf of small business owners, entrepreneurs, church pastors, and the headmaster of a private school, against Governor Baker’s unlawful Civil Defense Act State of Emergency. The lawsuit aims to restore constitutional governance to the Commonwealth by returning the power to protect the health and welfare of Massachusetts residents to local boards of health and the legislature, as required by law and the Massachusetts Constitution.

CASE SUMMARY – The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group filed the complaint, Carmen’s Corner Store, et al. v. U.S. Small Business Administration, et al., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. NCLA represents Altimont Mark Wilks, a small business owner from Hagerstown, Md., who was unlawfully barred from applying for PPP loans because he is still on probation.

CASE SUMMARY – NCLA represents Michael Loughrey, who is 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,” which excludes all persons indicted or charged of any crime.

CASE SUMMARY – NCLA filed the complaint, Matthew Johnson v. Philip D. Murphy, et al., today against Governor Murphy in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, challenging Executive Order No. 128. The order, which violates federal constitutional law, state constitutional law, state contract law and state landlord-tenant law, purports to allow tenants to use their security deposits to offset rent or back rent. 

CASE SUMMARY – NCLA’s complaint asks the court to stop the agency from enforcing the unlawful order that—among other problems—violates the right to access the courts, exceeds limits on the Supremacy Clause, raises serious non-delegation doctrine concerns, and implicates anti-commandeering principles and precedents.