Forgotten Blockbusters. Anastasia Boden Talks to A&G

Summary

Podcast Summary: Armstrong & Getty On Demand

Episode: Forgotten Blockbusters. Anastasia Boden Talks to A&G
Date: July 8, 2026
Host: Armstrong & Getty
Guest: Anastasia Boden, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

---

Episode Overview

This episode examines a trio of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, dubbed "blockbusters," that captured headlines but quickly faded from public focus. Anastasia Boden, a leading attorney from Pacific Legal Foundation, unpacks the actual content and impact of the rulings—with a candid, often humorous back-and-forth with the Armstrong & Getty hosts. The discussion covers cases regarding transgender athletes in sports, birthright citizenship, and police use of digital geofencing for criminal investigations. Anastasia also shares insights on the court’s internal dynamics, media narratives, and previews litigation she hopes will reach the Supreme Court.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Misleading Headlines & Supreme Court Rulings (00:36)

• Armstrong or Getty sets the stage: While away, three major Supreme Court rulings were handed down:
  • Transgender athletes in sports
  • Fourth Amendment/cell phone privacy case
  • Birthright citizenship
• Anastasia Boden captures the episode's theme:

  "They were all supposed to be blockbusters. And everybody’s telling you that if they don’t get their way, it’s going to be the end of the world. And then the term is over. And now everybody’s forgotten about all three anyway." (01:25)

---

2. Transgender Athletes in High School Sports (01:41)

• Key Decision: Supreme Court did NOT rule that states must separate trans athletes but affirmed states may choose to do so.
• All nine justices agreed: Separation does not violate Title IX.
• Dissent (Equal Protection Clause): Three justices posited that trans athletes who mitigate biological advantages (via hormone therapy) could challenge bans—but the majority rejected this.
• Boden’s summary:

  "[The ruling] just says that states can separate if they want to. ... The majority, actually all nine justices ... said that separating transgender athletes does not violate Title IX." (02:00)
  "It doesn’t matter if you’ve taken hormone therapy, it’s good enough if the state decides that men and women are different." (02:34)

• Notable moment: Both host and guest express surprise that only 27 states have enacted such laws and note increasing bipartisan support.

---

3. Birthright Citizenship (03:20)

• Key Decision: Birthright citizenship remains broadly protected in the U.S.; Supreme Court upheld nearly universal application except for “enemy occupiers” and diplomats.
• 6–3 decision, some conservative justices joined the majority.
• Anna’s explanation:

  “The text is written really broadly. If you don’t like it, we can get a constitutional amendment for that. But ... this is the way it’s been for ... over 100 years, 150 years.” (03:32)

• Majority vs. Dissent: Original intent (aimed at freed slaves) discussed, but majority holds to broad constitutional language.

  "Maybe that was the intent, but the text itself applies very broadly and establishes a broad principle of birthright citizenship. And so that’s what rules." (04:30)

---

4. Supreme Court and Perceptions of Political Influence (04:55)

• Hosts note that several key cases (including tariffs and birthright citizenship) went against former President Trump’s preferences.
• Boden rebuts media narratives:

  "It does a lot of damage to people who say these justices march in lockstep with the president who nominated them. ... When these justices vote according to what they believe is the right outcome, that bolsters the Supreme Court." (05:19)

• The host points out that voting patterns aren’t as monolithic as often portrayed, with references to the “three, three, three” philosophical split this term.

---

5. Patterns on the Court & Dissenting Justices (06:41)

• Breakdown of how often cases are actually unanimous or near-unanimous.
• Discussion about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson:

  "She’s been writing separately to ... write really strident dissents sometimes, you know, kind of nasty dissents. But she’s been on the losing side most." (07:00)

• Host humorously wonders if being on the losing side so often might prompt soul-searching.

---

6. Digital Geofencing and Fourth Amendment Rights (07:53)

• Case: Police used a digital “geofence” to collect all cell phone data within the vicinity of a crime.
• Supreme Court ruling: This constitutes a search requiring a warrant.
• Boden:

  "They said that requires a warrant. ... That is almost a quintessential for the Fourth Amendment search that really invades people’s privacy. ... We still enjoy some expectation of privacy here. And if the court is going to sweep so broadly, it needs a warrant." (08:29)

• Warns of dangers posed by the “third party doctrine” in the digital era:

  "In the Internet age, everything we do is somehow watched by somebody. ... It would mean that the government could look up everything we do from text to Google searches to where we are on our cell phones. I mean, it’s really disturbing. So that was a win." (09:10)

• Host echoes concerns:

  "Where we go, we talk to our politics, our finances, our taxes, our love, relationships. I mean, everything is in our phones." (09:40)

---

7. Reflections on the Term & Looking Ahead (10:08)

• Boden: Surprised? Not really. Saw outcomes like birthright citizenship coming; tariffs close, but big losses for Trump.
• Perspective:

  "Guess what? Trump lost. ... The government has to pay back the money. ... Everybody’s fine. The economy seems to be doing better." (10:08)

• Anticipates that next term may bring “really, really explosive cases.”

---

8. Preview: Free Speech Case Boden Hopes to Take to the Supreme Court (11:15)

• Boden shares details of her First Amendment challenge to a California law mandating implicit bias content in all private medical continuing education.

  "Our client ... fled tyranny for freedom of speech and freedom. ... She doesn’t believe in implicit bias. ... She doesn’t want to be forced to talk about it. ... She has a First Amendment right to talk about whatever she wants to talk about. ... What she wants to talk about is ocular surgery." (11:21–12:39)

• Boden hopes to get Supreme Court cert for the case.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "They were all supposed to be blockbusters. ... And now everybody’s forgotten about all three anyway."
  — Anastasia Boden (01:25)
• "It’s amazing that only 27 states have banned this."
  — Host (03:05)
• "If you contract with a third party or in any way give away any data ... then all of a sudden it becomes free of Fourth Amendment protections and the government can seize it whenever. ... That applies to everything. In the Internet age, everything we do is somehow watched by somebody."
  — Anastasia Boden (09:10)
• "You would think ... or you would at least temper down the dissents and ... have some humility about it, right?"
  — Anastasia Boden on dissenting justices (07:37)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:36 – Episode theme: “forgotten blockbusters” of Supreme Court term
• 01:41 – Deep dive on transgender athletes ruling
• 03:20 – Birthright citizenship outcome and discussion
• 04:55 – Media narratives and Supreme Court independence
• 06:41 – Court unanimity stats and discussion of dissenting opinions
• 07:53 – Fourth Amendment geofence case explained
• 10:08 – Reflections on the term; what surprised Boden
• 11:15 – Boden’s upcoming First Amendment case against CA implicit bias mandate

---

Further Listening

• Guest’s podcast: “In Dissent” (hosted by Anastasia Boden)

Closing remarks: The episode demonstrates how dramatic legal headlines rarely match nuanced judicial reality—and why careful analysis is always needed on Supreme Court news. Listeners are left with a preview of free speech litigation that could become another “blockbuster” in the future.

Transcript

[Anastasia Bowden]

This is an I heart podcast. Guaranteed human.

[Joel Osteen]

The Joel Osteen Daily Podcast.

[Joel Osteen Daily Podcast Announcer]

God's plans for you are for good.

[Joel Osteen]

Be inspired.

[Joel Osteen Daily Podcast Announcer]

Get ready. God is about to exceed your expectations.

[Joel Osteen]

Joel Osteen Daily Podcast.

[Joel Osteen Daily Podcast Announcer]

You are coming out of that dry place into more than enough daily encouragement

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

right when you need it.

[Joel Osteen Daily Podcast Announcer]

There are opportunities in your future bigger than you can imagine.

[Joel Osteen]

Listen to the Joel Osteen Daily podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your favorite podcasts.

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

Three rulings came down while we were off last week that I'm interested in from the Supreme Court. And then they hightail it out of there and they go do whatever they do. They. I don't know if they fish or. I don't know what Supreme Court justices doing their off time before they come back in October, but three rulings came down that I'm particularly interested in. The trans ruling. Got a Fourth Amendment case. It's got to do with your cell phones and stuff like that. And then the birthright citizenship, which Trump was really into. Anyway, we welcome back to the show Anastasia Bowden, senior attorney, Equality and Opportunity for the Pacific Legal Foundation. How are you today, Anastasia?

[Anastasia Bowden]

Oh, doing great. Talking about my favorite thing with one of my favorite people.

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

Well, I believe it's one of your favorite things. I don't believe I'm one of your favorite people. Which of these you most excited about?

[Anastasia Bowden]

You know, it's funny, they were all big. They're so in the news, everyone. They were all supposed to be blockbusters. And everybody's telling us tells you that if they don't get their way, it's going to be the end of the world. And then the term is over. And now everybody's forgotten about all three anyway. But I mean, we can start with the trans athletes one.

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

Okay, so first of all, oftentimes the headline of what happened is incredibly misleading as to what was actually decided. And I haven't looked into these because I was on vacation, but. So what did they rule around? Trans athletes, particularly. The issue, as we all know, is boys competing in girls sports in high school.

[Anastasia Bowden]

Yeah, that's exactly right. This is one of those cases where the headlines are misleading because this case doesn't address whether states must separate trans athletes from women's sports. It just says that states can separate if they want to. And 27 states have chosen to do so. They've said that women's sports belong to women. And the majority, actually, all nine justices, all nine justices said that separating transgender athletes does not violate Title 9 of our Really?

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

I didn't realize it was a 9. Nothing on that, on that issue.

[Anastasia Bowden]

It was. I know the only place where there was some dissent was on the equal protection clause. Three justices thought that maybe if trans athletes have mitigated in quotes, mitigated their advantage by taking hormone therapy and whatnot, then they should be able to challenge that ban and say that they get to compete too with women. But the majority held no, it doesn't matter if you've, if you've taken hormone therapy, it's good enough. If the state decides that men and women are different.

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

It's amazing that only 27 states have banned this.

[Anastasia Bowden]

Yeah, but I think we might find movement on that soon when we had even Newsom, you know, saying in California that he was siding with this issue. So, you know, I think this is becoming more of a mainstream idea.

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

God, I would think so. All right, so what did they finally decide on birthright citizenship? If, if I fly in from China and have a baby here, are they automatically a citizen?

[Anastasia Bowden]

Basically, yes. Birthright citizenship is almost universal, save for a few exceptions, that is enemy occupiers. You're not entitled to birthright citizenship. And diplomats, basically, but everybody else gets birthright citizenship. It was a 6, 3 decision where we even had some of the so called conservative justices join here and say, hey, the text is written really broadly. If you don't like it, we can get a constitutional amendment for that. But this is the way, this is the status quo. This is the way. Way it's been for, you know, over 100 years, 150 years. And we're going to maintain that broad birthright citizenship.

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

So even though the original intent, and I don't know if that makes you an originalist, if you care about that, but even though the original intent was to make sure that slaves were considered citizens, doesn't matter the way it's written in the Constitution. It could include Chinese birth tourists or people who snuck across the border for five minutes or whatever.

[Anastasia Bowden]

That's right. And this was a, this was a fight between the majority and the dissent. Justice Thomas in particular said, hey, look at the way this was written. This was written in the wake of the Civil War to apply specifically to recently freed slaves and their progeny. But the majority said maybe, maybe that was the intent, but the text itself applies very broadly and establishes a broad principle of birthright citizenship. And so that's what rules.

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

I don't want to drag you into political conversations that might get you in trouble, but it is interesting that several of the big cases that Trump really wanted to go a certain way, didn't go his way. Despite mainstream media portraying the Supreme Court as some sort of MAGA rubber stamp that answers to Trump. They went against him on a whole bunch of stuff he cared about.

[Anastasia Bowden]

That's absolutely right. I mean, he won some, but he lost a lot, and he lost the big ones. He lost the tariff case, which he had. He had run his campaign on tariffs and birthright citizenship. Those were cornerstones of his election. And so, you know, he lost the really big ones. And it does a lot of damage to the people who say that these justices march in lockstep with the president who nominated them. And in fact, Justice Barrett is getting dragged through the mud right now for not voting with Trump, even though she's not the only one Chief justice has deviated from him as well. And I think that's really a shame, because when these justices vote according to what they believe is the right outcome, that bolsters the Supreme Court. And it's really these attacks on the justices that are doing. Doing the most damage.

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

Well, it hasn't been true throughout both of Trump's terms. I mean, if you look at it statistically, it has not been a clear 6, 3 the justices that he appointed always going with him and not even close to that.

[Anastasia Bowden]

Yeah, that's right. They're saying this term, it's more of a three, three, three divide. The three liberal justices really do vote almost entirely in lockstep. You're getting a little bit of divide between Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Thomas on the one hand, and then the Chief justice, and my brain is blinking, the Chief Justice Gorsuch and ACB on the other.

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

Do you look at any. I like those end of the year roundups where they go through, like, how many cases were decided by this number and that number and everything like that. I find that really interesting. And Ms. Jackson, who does the most talking and is the newest person, she was on the wrong side by far the most.

[Anastasia Bowden]

Yes. And she. She's been writing separately to. To write really strident dissents sometimes, you know, kind of nasty dissents. But she's been on the losing side most. I love those statistics, too, because it's actually shocking how many cases are unanimous or near unanimous. You only hear about the. The divisive ones. But in reality, the court is. Is pretty united.

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

If you were on the. So you got nine really smart legal minds there. And if you're on the losing side by far more than anybody else, year after year, wouldn't you at some Point you think, question your decision making.

[Anastasia Bowden]

You, you would think. You would think or you would at least temper down the dissents and not, you know, accuse the majority of being, you know, unprincipled or, or what have you at least admit that, that maybe have some humility about it. Right?

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

No kidding. Yeah, no kidding. So on this one about the geofencing. So you got this case that arose from a 2019 bank robbery in Virginia where the police used a geofence warrant. That is they drew a virtual geographical fence around an area where a crime was committed and then asked Google to turn over the names of everyone's phone who is inside a certain area. I find that troubling that that ever happened. But that fits into this particular case. Chatri, is that how you say it? Versus the United States. What did they determine on this?

[Anastasia Bowden]

They said that that that requires a warrant. Come on. That is almost a quintessential for the fourth amendment search that really invades people's privacy. And it's not good enough to say that, you know, we contract with cell phone companies and so now we give our data over to them and can have no expect privacy in our data. We still enjoy some expectation of privacy here. And if the court is going to sweep so broadly, it needs a warrant.

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

Yeah, I like that one. I heard it portrayed as the way they ruled didn't help us that much. But if it had gone the other way, it would have been horrifying in terms of the government's ability to start reaching into our phones.

[Anastasia Bowden]

Yeah, that's exactly right. I mean, think about this third party doctrine. This, this rule where if you, if you contract with a third party or in any way give away any data to third party, then all of a sudden it becomes free of fourth amendment protections and the government can seize it whenever. I mean, that applies to everything. In the Internet age, everything we do is somehow watched by somebody. And it would make, it would mean that the government could, could look up everything we do from text to Google searches to where we are on our cell phones. I mean, it's really disturbing. So that was a win.

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

You're right. Where we go, we talk to our politics, our finances, our taxes, our love, relationships. I mean, everything is in our phones.

[Anastasia Bowden]

That's exactly right. But that was a big win, a really good case. And, and it's part of, you know, that's another interesting one where you get, you get some agreement between both the liberal justices and the conservative justices.

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

Thank God for that one. At the end of the season, any big surprises to you?

[Anastasia Bowden]

You know, not really. I think for somebody who watches the court closely, we always knew birthright citizenship was going to be an uphill battle for the government. We kn. Justices. Right. We're gonna, we're gonna rule against Trump on birthright citizenship. So, so the challengers only needed two more. That's not a very high bar there. So that one kind of went how we thought it was going to go. You know, the tariffs case, that was a close one. That could have gone either way. And again, that was another case where both sides said the, the sky was going to fall if, if they lost. But guess what? Trump lost. You know, the government has to pay back the money. I think they're still doing fine. Everybody's fine. The economy seems to be doing better. I know a lot of small businesses who are, who are really thriving because they no longer have to pay those really punishing tariffs. So it seems like for the better. I don't think it was all that surprising. But, you know, we'll see what happens next term. They say that quiet, loud terms are followed by quiet terms and vice versa. So maybe next year we'll get some really, really explosive cases.

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

Is there anything we expect to come down next year?

[Anastasia Bowden]

I'm hoping one of my own cases gets granted.

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

Okay, what's your, what's your, what's your favorite one that you would love to have make it to the Supreme Court?

[Anastasia Bowden]

Well, it actually involves a California law, of course, where if you are a medical professional and you teach a continuing education course, so you know, to get, to keep your license, your medical license, you have to take so many hours of continuing medical education. Now, if you're a teacher of one of those courses which are totally private. Right. These are just private individuals, doctors, surgeons, whatever, physical therapists who teach these cases or these courses. California said if you teach that course, no matter what you are talking about, you have to include a section on implicit bias. Yes, yes. The idea that, you know, there are health disparities based on race and they come from everybody's unconscious bias. It's, it's totally offensive and divisive. And our client, you know, she actually fled from Iran. She, she fled tyranny for freedom of speech and freedom. And she doesn't believe in implicit bias. She doesn't think that's the main driver of health disparities. She doesn't want to be forced to talk about it.

[Joel Osteen Daily Podcast Announcer]

Right.

[Anastasia Bowden]

It's not, it's not. It's very shoddy science, by the way, and she, she has a First Amendment right to talk about whatever she wants to talk about. And by the way, what she wants to talk about is ocular surgery. It has nothing to do with implicit bias. You do not need to talk about implicit bias in those courses. So we're challenging that on the First Amendment, and I think we ought to get to the Supreme Court and win.

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

That's awesome. I hope you do and that we'd love to talk about it. Anastasia Bowden, you are so good at this. We really appreciate your time.

[Anastasia Bowden]

Thanks for having me.

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

Unfortunately, we might not talk again until next October.

[Anastasia Bowden]

Oh, I hope not.

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

Yeah, well, we'll come up with a reason to. To. To talk to you before then. We'll. We'll make up a reason. All right.

[Anastasia Bowden]

Three. Three. To the Supreme Court.

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

There you go. Fantastic. Anastasia Bowden. She is with the Pacific Legal Foundation. You just heard one of the cases she's going to be working on. What am I supposed to say about the podcast, Hanson? What do you want me to say? Oh, she has a podcast. That's right. In Descent. She's the host of the very popular In Dissent podcast. So if you like her act. And how would you not, you should check that out. We've got more on the way right here.

[Anastasia Bowden]

Stay Armstrong and Getty.

[Joel Osteen]

The Joel Osteen Daily Podcast.

[Joel Osteen Daily Podcast Announcer]

God's plans for you are for good.

[Joel Osteen]

Be inspired.

[Joel Osteen Daily Podcast Announcer]

Get ready. God is about to explain. Exceed your expectations.

[Joel Osteen]

Joel Osteen Daily Podcast.

[Joel Osteen Daily Podcast Announcer]

You are coming out of that dry place into more than enough daily encouragement

[Host (Armstrong or Getty)]

right when you need it.

[Joel Osteen Daily Podcast Announcer]

There are opportunities in your future bigger than you can imagine.

[Joel Osteen]

Listen to the Joel Osteen Daily podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your favorite podcasts.