May 15, 2026 • 8 mins
Anticipating historic and impactful decisions on the remaining cases in the current Supreme Court term, Anastasia Boden (Senior Attorney Equality & Opportunity a the Pacific Legal Foundation) joins Jack to talk about presidential powers and Congress's inability to do it's job! Not to be missed!
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Who doesn't want to turn into a radio show that
does a deep dive on Humphrey's Executor, which is just
a great phrase or a great name for a legal case,
Humphrey's Executor. It all gets down to whether or not
a president of the United States can fire certain people
that are in the executive branch. In theory, as the
(00:20):
head of the executive branch, you'd think he could fire
anybody in the executive branch, but you can't because of
Humphrey's Executor. Anyway, we're going to talk about that a
little bit because the Supreme Court's looking at it right
now and it could have major implications. With Anastasia Boden,
who joins us on the Armstrong Ngetti Show, she's a
senior attorney Equality and Opportunity for the Pacific Legal Foundation.
(00:42):
We've talked to her before. We're headed into June, where
the Supreme Court releases a lot of their decisions.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
This is supposed to be the most exciting time. It's
the time we're all waiting for. There's only thirty five
cases left. It's the biggest cases of the term, the
spiciest ones. Everyone was signed on today to see what
the Court would do. Which opinions they were going to release,
and what do they do? They release two opinions on
feberal preemption and arbitration. The facts are so boring. I
(01:09):
feel that even mentioning the topic, I ex coord that's fantastic.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
First of all, why do they wait until the very
end to release these Is there a strategy there?
Speaker 2 (01:22):
I think there's a little bit of strategy. I mean,
these things tend to be divisive, and it's not the
Court's fault. It's the government's fault. The government has invaded
so many aspects of our life that it forces the
Court into the position of having to rule on very
controversial things, and so people are naturally outraged. So the Court,
you know, they want to wait to the end before
they're going to go to summer recess. But also because
(01:44):
these things are so controversial, I think there's a lot
of back and forth behind the scenes at the court.
You know, they're writing descents, they're trading the opinions, they're
making alterations. So it's just a technical, you know, procedural
thing as much as it's a strategic thing.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
So we're I don't know if you heard me mention
it at least briefly, Humphrey's Executor and doing my dumb
guy explanation of what it means. But it is kind
of weird that we have a branch of government where
the person at the top of the president has a
bunch of agencies in his branch and he can't touch them,
at least in theory because of that Humphrey's Executive executive ruling,
(02:21):
and that's what they're looking at.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
That's right. This is actually one of the good cases.
This is a big, big case because it would overturn
you know, one of a very big case in constitutional law,
been on the book since nineteen thirty five that says
that Congress can limit the president's ability to fire people
in the executive branch. And Congress says, hey, these are
independent agencies. Like independence is a good thing.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
But the problem is and what branch then their own
special fourth branch. I don't understand.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
That's exactly right. We don't want buocrats to be independent.
We want them to be politically accountable. And if they
don't answer to the president, who do they answer to?
No one there they're not elected, They're don't answer to
the people, So we need need them to answer to
the president so that if they do something bad, we
can hold the president accountable and vote him out. So
years ago the Supreme Court blessed this scheme where Congress
(03:12):
can insulate bureaucrats from presidential accountability no matter what they do.
And now we're going to hear whether that's a violation
of the separation of powers and whether the Constitution requires
that the president be able to fire people in the
executive branch.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
Well, at first, blush, it seems to me that yes,
the president should have the ability to do that, and
they should be responsible to voters in that way. The
best examples to me being a lot of the environmental stuff.
So Congress passes these laws that are very broad. Lets
the agencies get into the specifics of it, but then
(03:50):
aren't accountable to anybody, which is horrible.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Yeah, and make no mistake, Congress likes this scheme, right.
They pass these broad laws, they kick it off to
the bureaucrats and they go, oh hey, go and force them.
And then you know, they Congress has no political accountability either.
They're like, well, we didn't do it the bureaucrats. Blame
the bureaucrats, right, So there're as much to blame as anyone.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
Congress ends up being to blame for lots of these days,
don't they They do.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
And yet they seem to evade any accountability for it.
They just throw up their hands and say, oh, it's
too hard to get anything pass. Oh it's the bureaucrats.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
Oh, I really like your style, you know, as kind
of an aside, do you think there's any getting out
of this situation where we are currently, where Congress doesn't
do their job, which causes the president to go with
a lot of you know, executive orders, which is a
bad way to govern and only lasts as long as
(04:43):
each presidency, or it ends up getting thrown to the
Supreme Court where they end up in the most controversial
spot because Congress won't do it. Is there any way
out of this?
Speaker 2 (04:52):
I mean, the only way out of it is if
the people start holding their representatives accountable to themselves into
the constant. But I think we've gotten to this place
where a lot of people feel helpless, They feel very
disconnected from Congress. They feel like there's nothing they can do,
and so, you know, it's just time for us to
realize we absolutely can and we have to demand more
of them, And you know, that we have to also
(05:14):
demand think about all the scandals that are plaguing Congress,
and I think we kind of roll our eyes now
it seems kind of run of the mill. This is
not run of the mill, so we have to.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Do something about that. I would agree, and that the
stats I've always liked around this is Congress regularly pulls
very low lower now than it's ever pulled before for
both parties, Like it's in the teams or twenty percent,
but like ninety five percent of Congress people get reelected.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
Yeah. Well that's the problem too, is you know that
the whole machine is set up for incumbency. So it's
true that there's a lot of hurdles to changing it.
But you know, I remain optimistic.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
So if the Supreme Court decides, you know what, the
president can fire these people. They're in the executive branch.
He's the top executive. He can fire them. Any downside
to that, anything you're worried about.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
I mean, no, yeah, I think fire them, you know,
I mean, fire them all. But I don't think really
missing anything. I mean, we have to realize that the
principle wins out that you know, it's interesting that the
people who oppose this type of thing. They tend to
oppose it in a particular administration, so people know it
(06:22):
depends on who's in power, and they're like, no, no, no,
we have to let them be independent. But the principle
is there. And I think the principle of separation of
powers and accountability to the to the people, I think
that's gonna went out over the long run.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
Yeah, the idea of all these commissions getting to write
their lines of basically law, because they were giving a
broad law that lets them write the you know, the
lines of whatever you guys call it code or something
like that. The rules. I guess it's the rules and
all these different commissions that we all have to follow
in that there's no there's no way for us to
push back.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
So absolutely they should be accountable to us.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
Hey, Annastasiaden, we appreciate your time. Do they thank you
very much for clarifying that. I love that.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
Yeah, she's good. Pacific Legal Foundation Senior Attorney Anastasia Boden,
She is fantastic. If you can bring that sort of
whimsy to the hump freeze executor ruling, I mean, that's
a special talent right there. But we did create this
like weird kind of fourth branch. That's all these agencies
that they get handed off, like we said, a very
(07:29):
broad law. Tim Sander, for our other legal friend, talks
about this a lot of time. Congress will will pass
a law that basically says, you know, don't do any
bad things. And then they get to fill in the
rest these agencies and they're not answerable to anybody. Nobody
can fire them, and so they can decide, you know what,
gas stoves are the worst thing that ever happened to
(07:49):
human beings. We got to get rid of gas stoves,
like what according to who? We don't like that, but
there's no pushback, and maybe after the Supreme Court ruling
there will be. They will have to worry about public
opinion when they make these decisions, or they will lose
their jobs, which is the way it should work. That's
fantas fantastic. Get a special gold star to anastage or
(08:10):
send her Armstrong and Getty oven Mitt or something to
let her know how pleased I was with her appearance. Okay,
Armstrong and Getty
Who doesn't want to turn into a radio show that
does a deep dive on Humphrey's Executor, which is just
a great phrase or a great name for a legal case,
Humphrey's Executor. It all gets down to whether or not
a president of the United States can fire certain people
that are in the executive branch. In theory, as the
(00:20):
head of the executive branch, you'd think he could fire
anybody in the executive branch, but you can't because of
Humphrey's Executor. Anyway, we're going to talk about that a
little bit because the Supreme Court's looking at it right
now and it could have major implications. With Anastasia Boden,
who joins us on the Armstrong Ngetti Show, she's a
senior attorney Equality and Opportunity for the Pacific Legal Foundation.
(00:42):
We've talked to her before. We're headed into June, where
the Supreme Court releases a lot of their decisions.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
This is supposed to be the most exciting time. It's
the time we're all waiting for. There's only thirty five
cases left. It's the biggest cases of the term, the
spiciest ones. Everyone was signed on today to see what
the Court would do. Which opinions they were going to release,
and what do they do? They release two opinions on
feberal preemption and arbitration. The facts are so boring. I
(01:09):
feel that even mentioning the topic, I ex coord that's fantastic.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
First of all, why do they wait until the very
end to release these Is there a strategy there?
Speaker 2 (01:22):
I think there's a little bit of strategy. I mean,
these things tend to be divisive, and it's not the
Court's fault. It's the government's fault. The government has invaded
so many aspects of our life that it forces the
Court into the position of having to rule on very
controversial things, and so people are naturally outraged. So the Court,
you know, they want to wait to the end before
they're going to go to summer recess. But also because
(01:44):
these things are so controversial, I think there's a lot
of back and forth behind the scenes at the court.
You know, they're writing descents, they're trading the opinions, they're
making alterations. So it's just a technical, you know, procedural
thing as much as it's a strategic thing.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
So we're I don't know if you heard me mention
it at least briefly, Humphrey's Executor and doing my dumb
guy explanation of what it means. But it is kind
of weird that we have a branch of government where
the person at the top of the president has a
bunch of agencies in his branch and he can't touch them,
at least in theory because of that Humphrey's Executive executive ruling,
(02:21):
and that's what they're looking at.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
That's right. This is actually one of the good cases.
This is a big, big case because it would overturn
you know, one of a very big case in constitutional law,
been on the book since nineteen thirty five that says
that Congress can limit the president's ability to fire people
in the executive branch. And Congress says, hey, these are
independent agencies. Like independence is a good thing.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
But the problem is and what branch then their own
special fourth branch. I don't understand.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
That's exactly right. We don't want buocrats to be independent.
We want them to be politically accountable. And if they
don't answer to the president, who do they answer to?
No one there they're not elected, They're don't answer to
the people, So we need need them to answer to
the president so that if they do something bad, we
can hold the president accountable and vote him out. So
years ago the Supreme Court blessed this scheme where Congress
(03:12):
can insulate bureaucrats from presidential accountability no matter what they do.
And now we're going to hear whether that's a violation
of the separation of powers and whether the Constitution requires
that the president be able to fire people in the
executive branch.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
Well, at first, blush, it seems to me that yes,
the president should have the ability to do that, and
they should be responsible to voters in that way. The
best examples to me being a lot of the environmental stuff.
So Congress passes these laws that are very broad. Lets
the agencies get into the specifics of it, but then
(03:50):
aren't accountable to anybody, which is horrible.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Yeah, and make no mistake, Congress likes this scheme, right.
They pass these broad laws, they kick it off to
the bureaucrats and they go, oh hey, go and force them.
And then you know, they Congress has no political accountability either.
They're like, well, we didn't do it the bureaucrats. Blame
the bureaucrats, right, So there're as much to blame as anyone.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
Congress ends up being to blame for lots of these days,
don't they They do.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
And yet they seem to evade any accountability for it.
They just throw up their hands and say, oh, it's
too hard to get anything pass. Oh it's the bureaucrats.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
Oh, I really like your style, you know, as kind
of an aside, do you think there's any getting out
of this situation where we are currently, where Congress doesn't
do their job, which causes the president to go with
a lot of you know, executive orders, which is a
bad way to govern and only lasts as long as
(04:43):
each presidency, or it ends up getting thrown to the
Supreme Court where they end up in the most controversial
spot because Congress won't do it. Is there any way
out of this?
Speaker 2 (04:52):
I mean, the only way out of it is if
the people start holding their representatives accountable to themselves into
the constant. But I think we've gotten to this place
where a lot of people feel helpless, They feel very
disconnected from Congress. They feel like there's nothing they can do,
and so, you know, it's just time for us to
realize we absolutely can and we have to demand more
of them, And you know, that we have to also
(05:14):
demand think about all the scandals that are plaguing Congress,
and I think we kind of roll our eyes now
it seems kind of run of the mill. This is
not run of the mill, so we have to.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Do something about that. I would agree, and that the
stats I've always liked around this is Congress regularly pulls
very low lower now than it's ever pulled before for
both parties, Like it's in the teams or twenty percent,
but like ninety five percent of Congress people get reelected.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
Yeah. Well that's the problem too, is you know that
the whole machine is set up for incumbency. So it's
true that there's a lot of hurdles to changing it.
But you know, I remain optimistic.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
So if the Supreme Court decides, you know what, the
president can fire these people. They're in the executive branch.
He's the top executive. He can fire them. Any downside
to that, anything you're worried about.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
I mean, no, yeah, I think fire them, you know,
I mean, fire them all. But I don't think really
missing anything. I mean, we have to realize that the
principle wins out that you know, it's interesting that the
people who oppose this type of thing. They tend to
oppose it in a particular administration, so people know it
(06:22):
depends on who's in power, and they're like, no, no, no,
we have to let them be independent. But the principle
is there. And I think the principle of separation of
powers and accountability to the to the people, I think
that's gonna went out over the long run.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
Yeah, the idea of all these commissions getting to write
their lines of basically law, because they were giving a
broad law that lets them write the you know, the
lines of whatever you guys call it code or something
like that. The rules. I guess it's the rules and
all these different commissions that we all have to follow
in that there's no there's no way for us to
push back.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
So absolutely they should be accountable to us.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
Hey, Annastasiaden, we appreciate your time. Do they thank you
very much for clarifying that. I love that.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
Yeah, she's good. Pacific Legal Foundation Senior Attorney Anastasia Boden,
She is fantastic. If you can bring that sort of
whimsy to the hump freeze executor ruling, I mean, that's
a special talent right there. But we did create this
like weird kind of fourth branch. That's all these agencies
that they get handed off, like we said, a very
(07:29):
broad law. Tim Sander, for our other legal friend, talks
about this a lot of time. Congress will will pass
a law that basically says, you know, don't do any
bad things. And then they get to fill in the
rest these agencies and they're not answerable to anybody. Nobody
can fire them, and so they can decide, you know what,
gas stoves are the worst thing that ever happened to
(07:49):
human beings. We got to get rid of gas stoves,
like what according to who? We don't like that, but
there's no pushback, and maybe after the Supreme Court ruling
there will be. They will have to worry about public
opinion when they make these decisions, or they will lose
their jobs, which is the way it should work. That's
fantas fantastic. Get a special gold star to anastage or
(08:10):
send her Armstrong and Getty oven Mitt or something to
let her know how pleased I was with her appearance. Okay,
Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com