Good Butter, Bad Decisions. Anastasia Boden Talks to A&G

Summary

---

Armstrong & Getty On Demand

Episode: "Good Butter, Bad Decisions. Anastasia Boden Talks to A&G"

Date: June 24, 2026

Host: Armstrong & Getty (A&G) with guest Anastasia Boden of Pacific Legal Foundation

---

Episode Overview

In this engaging episode, Armstrong & Getty welcome Anastasia Boden, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, to dissect recent Supreme Court decisions and the broader impacts of government bureaucracy on individual rights. The discussion ranges from property rights and due process, to religious liberty, gun laws, and the often absurd realities of regulatory overreach—highlighted by stories ranging from home foreclosures to government butter taste testers. Boden provides insight into the nuances behind Supreme Court rulings and exposes the sometimes shocking disconnect between policy intentions and real-world consequences.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Pacific Legal Foundation’s Supreme Court Case on Home Equity Theft

Timestamps: 02:10 – 04:53

• Case Summary: The government seized a $200,000 family home over a disputed $2,000 tax bill, eventually selling it for $100,000.
• Legal Question: Should owners be compensated the fair market value or only the auction sale price?
• Outcome:
  • Boden: “Technically, we lost on the exact question that we asked the court to take up, but...there's a lot of good in there.” (02:21)
  • Supreme Court ruled owners are owed proceeds above the debt only if the auction is ‘fair’—fair market value is not required.
  • The PLF hopes to prove in lower courts that this specific auction was not fair due to government-created disadvantages.
• Implications:
  • “They have no incentive to maximize the value of your home...designed to get money as quickly as possible.” (03:43)
  • Broader concern about government overreach and lack of accountability in property rights proceedings.

---

2. The Banality of Bureaucratic Evil

Timestamps: 04:53 – 07:11

• Bureaucracies in Practice:
  • Boden shares a striking Wisconsin case: to sell butter, it had to be graded by a state taster judging its “pleasing” qualities.
    • “He would rank it on a pleasing scale from moderately pleasing to high.” (05:28)
  • The seemingly innocuous act has real consequences, harming small business owners.
  • “He is ruining people's lives...They make Amish style butter...which our clients take pride in, but which bureaucrats think means it’s crap.” (05:49)
• Themes:
  • Bureaucrats often lack malice, but their actions can be devastating due to the “banality of evil” (phrase invoked by Boden at 06:12).
  • The tendency for bureaucracies to become self-perpetuating and detached from original public-serving intentions.
  • “Once a bureaucracy reaches a certain stage, its only purpose becomes to serve the bureaucracy.” (06:12, Host)

---

3. Supreme Court: Religious Rights and Damages for Prisoners

Timestamps: 08:22 – 09:45

• Case Summary: Prison guards forcibly shaved a Rastafarian inmate’s dreadlocks just before his release, violating his religious rights.
• Legal Issue: Whether money damages, not just injunctions, are available as a remedy after the harm is done.
• Surprising Split:
  • Conservative justices, usually champions of religious liberty, denied damages to limit federal power.
  • “Conservative justices...said that money damages were not authorized. And they did it in the name of limiting federal power.” (09:23)
• Broader Point:
  • Media headlines often misrepresent the deeper legal reasoning behind Supreme Court decisions.

---

4. Gun Rights, Drug Laws, and Surprising Supreme Court Alignments

Timestamps: 10:27 – 14:21

• Notable Quote: “There’s this case...where it’s actually a unanimous decision protecting gun rights. I mean, when do you ever see that?” (10:57, Boden)
• Case Details:
  • A US-Pakistan dual citizen, whose home was searched for terrorism (no charges filed), was convicted for possessing a gun while being an ‘unlawful user’ of a controlled substance—marijuana, now largely legal.
  • Court sided with him: law violated his rights since he was neither addicted nor under the influence at the time.
• Key Insights:
  • Changing legal context of marijuana (now Schedule V).
  • “If a case with heroin comes up, that might be a totally different thing. But here, this is a Schedule 5 drug now.” (11:58, Boden)
  • Judges apply historic context—old laws once targeted ‘habitual drunkards’ via due process, not mere substance users.
• Philosophical Point:
  • “If I get high as a kite on the weekend, I don’t lose...any of my other...constitutional rights.” (12:54, Host)
• Memorable Exchange:
  • Host jokes: “You get caught doing heroin and they start quartering troops in your home. That sucks.” (14:21)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Bureaucratic Detachment:
  • “It’s the banality of evil…I’m in the deposition deposing this guy, the butter grater, and it was as if he had never thought about it before.” (05:09, Boden)
• On the Purpose of Bureaucracy:
  • “Once a bureaucracy reaches a certain stage, its only purpose becomes to serve the bureaucracy. They lose sight of their original goal...” (06:12, Host)
• On Misleading Media Headlines:
  • “The headline used in mainstream media is completely misleading as to the reasoning for the ruling.” (09:45, Host)
• On Modern Gun and Drug Laws:
  • “Marijuana is not heroin, basically. And they go to great lengths to say, we’re actually not talking about heroin here.” (11:58, Boden)

---

Structure and Tone

• Boden is praised for her clarity and depth: “How good is she? That’s awesome...talking to her just wouldn’t listen. Or you could just turn it off. You don’t have to...jam a screwdriver in your ears…” (14:41, Host)
• The tone is candid, feisty, and accessible, using humor to tackle genuinely troubling policy stories.

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 01:46 – Introduction to Anastasia Boden
• 02:10–04:53 – Supreme Court Home Equity Case
• 04:53–07:11 – Bureaucratic Overreach & Butter Tasting Anecdote
• 08:22–09:45 – Rastafarian Prisoner & Money Damages Case
• 10:27–14:21 – Gun Rights, Drug Users & Unexpected Supreme Court Decisions

---

Conclusion

This episode is a lively, insightful look at how government institutions, from local bureaucrats to the Supreme Court, affect everyday Americans—and how the logic behind headline rulings is often more intricate and contradictory than it first appears. Anastasia Boden’s sharp analysis, accessible anecdotes, and willingness to challenge institutional thinking make this episode compelling, especially for listeners interested in law, civil liberties, and public policy.

---

Transcript

[A]

This is an iHeart podcast.

[B]

Guaranteed Human this July 4th, come celebrate at America's Block Party, hosted by America 250. America's Block Party is a can't miss 4th of July concert happening at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.

[A]

Experience music, performances by major artists, patriotic tributes, and the kickoff to giving 4th, helping to make July 4th the largest day of giving in American history.

[B]

It's more than just fireworks.

[A]

Join this landmark celebration and get your America's Block Party Tickets now for $17.76 at america250.org LA hi, it's Karen in

[C]

Georgia from My Favorite Murder.

[A]

We cruised around LA in the Hyundai Ioniq 5 and dove into the fascinating life of actress and inventor Hedy Lamarr.

[C]

Want the full story?

[A]

Take a listen. She starts dating Howard Hughes, and in fact, she helps him design a faster plane. So she finds the fastest bird and the fastest fish and sketches out a drawing of what the two would look like as a plane. And that becomes the plane that we know today. And he calls her a genius. Check out our new episode spotlighting groundbreaking innovators like Hedy and Lamarr and Billie

[C]

Jean King, presented by the Hyundai Ioniq 5.

[A]

Goodbye.

[B]

And now here's Armstrong and Yeti. Trying to find my paperwork to introduce Anastasia failed to prepare. I can't just say, hey, here's Anastasia. It's got to say, there's Anastasia Bowden, senior attorney, Equality and Opportunity at Pacific Legal Foundation. We love those people. Anastasia, are you excited about the new Ben Stiller movie about pickleball called the Dink?

[C]

Haven't heard of it, but should I be?

[B]

No, we're gonna play the trailer a little bit later. So I was just teasing at. There's a new pickleball movie out. Do you play pickleball?

[C]

I. I know it's all the rage, but all I do is study the Supreme Court. I don't have time for pickleball. I got to keep an eye on these justices, you know?

[B]

There you go. So a whole bunch of rulings came out yesterday. Anything exciting? And it doesn't have to be. You don't have to pretend things are exciting if they're not exciting. But is there anything that we ought to know?

[C]

Well, I think it's exciting. And that's because yesterday the Supreme Court released an opinion in a case that Pacific Legal foundation litigated for us.

[B]

And you guys won?

[C]

Well, it's complicated. Technically. Technically, we lost on the exact question that we asked the court to take up, but I think in the long run, there's A lot of good in there. And our clients still get a second bite at the apple through this opinion, so I'm optimistic.

[B]

So what was the case? What was it about?

[C]

So in this case, the government had seized a $200,000 family home over a disputed $2,000 tax bill, almost certain that tax debt was not owed. An earlier court had said that it was not owed. But a rogue tax assessor moved forward with this tax debt anyway and issued the bill in a way that was very difficult for the family to find out about it. And basically, the house ended up going into foreclosure because of this $2,000 tax bill that they didn't. That was not owed and they didn't know about. And then the government sold the house for $100,000. And thanks to an earlier PLF case, we know that the government can keep the money that it was owed, $2,000, but it has to give the property owners back anything above that $2,000. The problem here is that this is a $200,000 house that the government sold for $100,000.

[B]

Thanks for that.

[C]

Right. So the government wiped out half of the home equity and said, no, we.

[B]

Only because they don't freaking care.

[C]

Of course they don't. They have no incentive to maximize the value of your home. They. It's. It's absurd. And so we went to the Supreme Court, and our clients are owed, you know, almost $200,000, not $100,000. And unfortunately, the Supreme Court said, no, actually, they don't have to give you fair market value. These auctions are, you know, they're not designed to maximize value to the property owner. They're designed to give the government money back. And so we're just gonna. We're gonna say that the auction price is what you're owed back, or that's the baseline for what you're owed as long as the auction is fair. And that's the. The key thing. So even though we would have said you get fair market value, the Supreme Court said, no, so long as the auction is fair. And here, the auction very clearly wasn't fair. They designed it to get money as. As quickly as possible. They don't let the owner bid on it at. At the auction. There's all these ways in which basically it's going to drive down the price. And so we think that when the case is remanded back down to the lower court, we hope that the lower court is going to say it wasn't fair. And therefore, our clients are owed more than half of their Home equity.

[B]

What is it with bureaucrats? Do you have a theory on like what happens to, I think probably otherwise, well meaning smart people that you get in a giant bureaucracy and you just start doing things that look crazy to those of us on the outside?

[C]

Oh, totally. I think it's the banality of evil. You know, it's, it's. I've been in depositions. We had a case in Wisconsin where in order to sell butter in the state you had to have it graded by a government taste tester who would taste test your butter. Yes. And then he would rank it on a pleasing scale from moderately pleasing to high.

[B]

Somewhat pleased. I am not pleased at all.

[C]

Truly. It's, it's absurd. And you know, I'm in the deposition deposing this guy, the butter grater, and it was as if he had never thought about it before. He wasn't, he was not an actually evil person of how incredibly subjective it

[B]

was, whether he thought it was pleasing or not, for one thing.

[C]

And the fact that he's literally out here, I mean, truly, it sounds crazy, but he is ruining people's lives. Our clients were a small butter making family. They don't have a lot of money. They make Amish style butter. Apparently that's not Land O Lakes tasting, which our clients take pride in, but which Democrats think means it's crap.

[B]

Right.

[C]

And he's ruining people's lives out there. And I think they, sometimes they just don't think about what they're doing.

[B]

Get back to that phrase you threw out there, a really good phrase I've always liked banality of evil. I still don't know what drives bureaucrats. There's the. We talk about the iron law of bureaucracy a lot. That for some reason, once a bureaucracy reaches a certain stage, its only purpose becomes to serve the bureaucracy. They like lose sight of their original goal no matter what it was.

[C]

It's just assumed everything they do is good. It's just, it's just stated it's for the, for the people, for the kids, for the children. It's all for the children.

[B]

Well, and then you just try to keep your job and. Right. And you know, and move on. But like that butter example is so good that makes me angry that that ever even occurred.

[C]

Yeah. And then, and then you go to places like Delaware where it's some absurd number. It's like 70%. It's some crazy number. Some percentage of the population works for the government. And then when everyone works for the government, how can you ever roll that back? As you say, right there's no rolling it back. They all depend on the government.

[B]

Yeah, that is. That is very troubling. Armstrong and Getty here. For hims, there are all kinds of great weight loss approaches that fit into your world out there. They've got them at hims with a wide range of affordable GLP1 options. You've got weight loss goals, but hitting them is another story. Check out Weight Loss by hims. It's designed to support you in losing the weight and keeping it off. And Hims now offers access to an affordable range of FDA approved GLP1 medications, including the Wegovy pill and the Wegovy pen. Through hims, everything happens online. You'll connect with a licensed provider who will determine if treatment's right for you. And then if prescribed, your medication is delivered right to your door. No insurance necessary. Ready to reach your goals? Visit hims.comarmstrong to get a personalized, affordable plan that gets you. That's H I M S.com Armstrong hims.com Armstrong Weight loss by hims is not available in all 50 states. Wegovy is the registered trademark of Novo Nordisk. As to get started and learn more, including important safety information, WeGovy clinical study information, and restrictions, visit HIMSS.com what else happened with the Supreme Court yesterday? Gay marriage, Roe versus Wade, Anything like that?

[C]

Well, there was a really interesting case involving a Rastafarian man who was just about to leave jail, but he had these dreadlocks that he had grown consistent with his Rastafarian beliefs. And just as he's about to be released, the prison officials decide that they're going to shave his head. And so he shows them a court opinion that says, no, you have a right to keep your hair long consistent with your religious beliefs in jail. And what the officials did is they took that decision from his hands, they threw it in the trash, they held him down and shaved his head anyway. And so he sued for damages because at that point, you know, his head's already been shaved. He's about to leave jail. It's not as if he needs some sort of injunction. He's already bald at this point and he's leaving anyway. So he doesn't need a ruling that they can't do it in the future. He needs money damages to make him whole. And so the question was, are money damages authorized under this federal statute? And so just these really shocking facts. And it was quite interesting because actually, the conservative justices on the court who tend to be more protective of religious liberty, they said that money damages were not authorized. And they did it in the name of limiting federal power, basically. So there was this complicated question of whether the federal government can even authorize money damages, and they say no in the name of limiting federal. Federal power.

[B]

I'm glad you brought up that case in that angle, because that is what happens so often with Supreme Court cases. The headline used in mainstream media is completely misleading as to the reasoning for the ruling.

[C]

That's exactly right. And, you know, so here you get this weird thing where you get the. The democratically appointed justices defending these religious rights, but why, I'm not sure. It's because, you know, they don't tend to be as great on these issues. It's actually because what they want is sweeping federal power to regul. Violate everything.

[B]

Right. Yeah. And that happens all the times on gun laws and all kinds of different things where the. The headline is. It is a pro gun thing, and it had nothing to do with it. I had to do with standing or something.

[C]

Exactly right. And actually there was a really interesting Second Amendment case that came out recently, if you're interested in that one.

[B]

Oh, sure, go ahead. Always love those.

[C]

Yeah, well, it was interesting because this is a.

[B]

There's gonna be a new one soon, by the way, because starting July 1, you can't buy a Glock in California, which is insane. It's the most popular gun in America, and they outlawed in California. There's no way that stands, is there?

[C]

Oh, I don't think so. California's repeat offender. I mean, they're. They're usually the vehicle for. For these cases to get up to the Supreme Court.

[B]

Anyway, I interrupted you. Go ahead.

[C]

Oh, not at all. So, yeah, there's this case that came out last week where it's actually a unanimous decision protecting gun rights. I mean, when do you ever see that? And again, it's. It's because there's some really complicated facts, and there's something deeper going on here. But this is a case where there was a dual US Pakistan citizen who had had his home searched on suspicion of terrorism, although no charges were ever brought. And during the course of this search, they find a gun and marijuana, and he's convicted under a federal statute. Yeah. Prohibiting possessing a gun while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance. So the question is whether the federal government can deprive someone who's not addicted, nor are they actually using drugs at the time of possessing guns.

[B]

Would that have mattered? Because, you know, that law is probably made back when marijuana was treated by the government like it was heroin. Would it have mattered. And, you know, it's legal in most states now, so would if it had been heroin, would it. Would that have made a difference?

[C]

I think you're right that the, the facts of this law in this case are doing a lot of work here. The court points out, like, hey, actually, marijuana has been moved down to a schedule. I don't know, what is it, five now, Schedule five drug right alongside Tylenol with codeine. You know, marijuana is not heroin, basically. And they go to great lengths to say, we're actually not talking about heroin here. And if a case with heroin comes up, that might be a totally different thing. But here, this is a Schedule 5 drug now. It's been broadly legalized. The law is permanently preventing this guy from. From having a gun. Despite that, you know, he was not incapacitated at the time. He's not known to be addict. There was no other charges brought. And so they just thought that this law, based on the facts, reached too far. But if another case comes up to the court involving some other drug or somebody who was intoxicated at the time, I think we get a totally different result.

[B]

Yeah, and we talked about this a lot around Hunter Biden and his drug use and the gun sort of stuff, but I don't know what I feel about that anyway, because, like, if I get high as a kite on the weekend, I don't lose my right to assemble or any of my other, you know, constitutional rights.

[C]

That's exactly right. And that's what the court says. And that's why I think you get this really interesting. You know, it's just such a. Interesting case to me, where it involves drugs, which, you know, conservatives tend to be more concerned about. But it also involves this right to. This very important right to keep and bear arms when you're sober. And then you get the liberal, I

[B]

own a gun that I've had when I was drunk, I used to drink out of. I don't drink anymore, but I still owned the gun when I was drunk. So I don't quite understand that part.

[C]

Well, that's what's interesting. The government actually points to historical laws that said that you could disarm drunkards.

[B]

Jim and I got to take my gun over to Jim's house and drop it off so I can go back home and get drunk. And then the morning I go pick it up again.

[C]

Yeah, that's. That's what they say it used to be. And they say, hey, you know, this was done at the founding era. So, of course the founders thought it was constitutional so why can't we do the same thing now? And the court says that's way different. Back then, you got a lot of due process. It was people who were habitually drunk, you know, consistently drunk, not just drinking on the weekends. So it's just a totally different ballgame.

[B]

Yeah. I would hate it if you lose your constitutional rights. You, you know, you get caught doing heroin and they start quartering troops in your home. That sucks. Anastasia Bowden, who is really, really, really. That's three. Really is good. Senior attorney, Equality and Opportunity Pacific Legal Foundation. Thanks for your time today. Really appreciate it.

[C]

Thanks for having me, man.

[B]

That's a. Do you get a gold star, Hanson, for finding her and then she gets a gold star for being her? How good is she? That's awesome. Need more concert? I hear so many conversations about this sort of stuff that makes you want to pluck your eyes out or jam a screwdriver in yours or something. I don't know why you do any of these things, but they're not enjoyable is my point. And talking to her just wouldn't listen. Or you could just turn it off. You don't have to do either of those things. Exactly. But how good was she? Okay. More on the way. Stay here.

[C]

Armstrong and Getty.

[B]

This July 4th, come celebrate at America's Block Party. Hosted by America250. America's Block Party is a can't miss 4th of July concert happening at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.

[A]

Experience music, performances by major artists, patriotic tributes, and the kickoff to giving four, helping to make July 4th the largest day of giving in American history.

[B]

It's more than just fireworks.

[A]

Join this landmark celebration and get your America's Block Party Tickets now for $17.76 at america250.org LA hi, it's Karen in

[C]

Georgia from My favorite Murder.

[A]

We cruised around LA in the Hyundai Ioniq 5 and dove into the fascinating life of actress and inventor Hedy Lamarr.

[C]

Want the full story? Take a listen.

[A]

She starts dating Howard Hughes and in fact, she helps him design a faster plane. So she finds the fastest bird and the fastest fish and sketches out a drawing of what the two would look like as a plane. And that becomes the plane that we know today. And he calls her a genius. Check out our new episode spotlighting groundbreaking innovators like Hedy Lamarr and Billie Jean King.

[C]

Presented by the Hyundai Ioniq 5.

[A]

Goodbye.