The Biggest, Spiciest Cases of the Term!!!

Summary

---

Armstrong & Getty On Demand

Episode: The Biggest, Spiciest Cases of the Term!!!

Date: May 15, 2026
Guests: Anastasia Bowden, Senior Attorney (Equality and Opportunity), Pacific Legal Foundation

---

Overview

In this episode, Armstrong & Getty discuss the most consequential Supreme Court cases of the current term, with a particular focus on the precedent-setting "Humphrey’s Executor" case and its pending challenge. Joined by legal expert Anastasia Bowden, the hosts examine the structure of the executive branch, the balance (or imbalance) of government accountability, and why these Supreme Court decisions are critical for American governance. The episode demystifies complex legal principles while exploring their real-world implications for presidential authority and bureaucratic power.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Supreme Court "Decision Season" & Recent Opinions

[02:05] Armstrong: "This is supposed to be the most exciting time. It's the time we're all waiting for...It’s the biggest cases of the term, the spiciest ones."

• The Supreme Court traditionally waits until June to release its most important and controversial decisions.
• The Court recently released two opinions on "federal preemption and arbitration"—topics the hosts find procedurally important but lacking broad public interest.

2. Why Does the Court Wait to Release Big Cases?

[02:33] Getty: "Why do they wait until the very end to release these? Is there a strategy there?"

[02:40] Armstrong:

• Suggests both procedural and strategic reasons: controversial cases provoke strong public reaction, prompting the Court to hold opinions until right before summer recess.
• Significant internal deliberations—trading dissents, revising drafts—also contribute to delays.

3. The Humphrey's Executor Case Explained

[01:18]/[03:17] Getty:

• Describes "Humphrey's Executor" as a foundational Supreme Court case affecting whether the President can fire certain executive branch officials.
• Surprised that the President, as head of the executive branch, cannot easily fire particular agency heads due to this precedent.

[03:40] Armstrong:

• “This is actually one of the good cases. This is a big, big case because it would overturn… a very big case in constitutional law, been on the book since 1935 that says that Congress can limit the President’s ability to fire people in the executive branch.”

[04:02] Getty:

• Raises concern: which branch do independent agencies really belong to if they're not accountable to the President or to voters?

4. Accountability (or Lack Thereof) in Government Agencies

[04:06] Armstrong:

• Warns about lack of direct accountability: “We don't want bureaucrats to be independent. We want them to be politically accountable. And if they don't answer to the President, who do they answer to?”

[04:46] Getty:

• Cites environmental agencies as examples where Congress passes broad laws, but unelected agencies fill in the “specifics” without direct accountability.

[05:11] Armstrong:

• “Make no mistake, Congress likes this scheme. Right. They pass these broad laws, they kick it off to the bureaucrats... Congress has no political accountability either.”

[05:31] Armstrong:

• Criticizes Congress for evading responsibility: “They seem to evade any accountability for it. They just throw up their hands and say, oh, it's too hard to get anything passed. Oh, it's the bureaucrats.”

5. Can We Escape the Accountability Trap?

[05:41] Getty:

• Asks if there’s any solution to Congress avoiding tough decisions, leading to more executive orders and Supreme Court involvement.

[06:10] Armstrong:

• Only way out is public engagement: “If the people start holding their representatives accountable to themselves and to the Constitution... we have to demand more of them.”

6. The Reelection Paradox

[06:42] Getty:

• Notes contradiction: “Congress regularly polls very low, lower now than it’s ever polled before… but like 95% of congresspeople get reelected.”

[06:55] Armstrong:

• “That’s the problem too… the whole machine is set up for incumbency. So it’s true that there’s a lot of hurdles to changing it. But… I remain optimistic.”

7. What Happens if Supreme Court Overrules Humphrey’s Executor?

[07:06] Getty:

• Asks about possible downsides to allowing the President to fire agency heads at will.

[07:18]/[07:23] Armstrong:

• “Fire him. You know, I mean, fire them all. I don't think we're really missing anything.”
• Emphasizes principle: “People who oppose this type of thing, they tend to oppose it in a particular administration... But the principle of separation of powers and accountability to the people… that’s going to win out over the long run.”

8. The Unaccountable "Fourth Branch"

[07:54] Getty:

• Explains how commissions/agencies effectively write detailed rules ("lines of code") without elected oversight:
  • “And then there's no way for us to push back.”

[08:14] Armstrong:

• “Absolutely, they should be accountable to us.”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Court's 'Spicy' Season:
  Armstrong [02:05]: “It’s the biggest cases of the term, the spiciest ones. Everyone was signed on today to see what the Court would do... and what did they do? ...opinions on federal preemption and arbitration. The facts are so boring. I feel bad even mentioning the topic. It's horrid.”

• On Accountability Crisis:
  Getty [04:02]: “Problem is, in what branch then? Their own special fourth branch? I don't understand.”

  Armstrong [04:06]: “We don't want bureaucrats to be independent. We want them to be politically accountable.”

• On Congress’s Evading Responsibility:
  Armstrong [05:11]: “Congress likes this scheme. They pass these broad laws, they kick it off to the bureaucrats... Congress has no political accountability either.”

  Getty [06:42]: “Congress regularly polls very low… but like 95% of congresspeople get reelected.”

• On Solutions:
  Armstrong [06:10]: “If the people start holding their representatives accountable to themselves and to the Constitution... we have to demand more of them."

• On the Principle at Stake:
  Armstrong [07:23]: “Fire him. You know, I mean, fire them all. I don't think we're really missing anything... I think the principle of separation of powers and accountability to the people, I think that's going to win out over the long run.”

• On Unchecked Commissions:
  Getty [08:22]: "Congress 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... But there's no pushback. And maybe after the Supreme Court ruling there will be."

---

Episode Flow & Timestamps

• [01:18-02:33] – Introduction to Humphrey's Executor and the Supreme Court's release schedule
• [03:17-04:46] – Importance of the case and the accountability problem with federal agencies
• [05:11-06:10] – How Congress benefits from shirking responsibility; the cycle of blame
• [06:42-07:06] – The reelection paradox and broader implications for democracy
• [07:06-08:17] – What overturning Humphrey’s Executor could mean; the role of public opinion in agency rulemaking
• [08:22-09:33] – Post-interview rundown and Armstrong & Getty’s reflections

---

Conclusion

This episode uses a contemporary Supreme Court case to illuminate fundamental questions about American governance: Who holds the reins in federal agencies? Can the President fire disobedient bureaucrats, and should Congress remain unaccountable? With insight and characteristic wit, Armstrong & Getty (with guest Anastasia Bowden) break down the big stakes in plain English, highlighting the long-term importance of restoring accountability and constitutional balance in the federal government.

Transcript

[Armstrong]

This is an iHeart podcast.

[Podcast Advertiser]

Guaranteed Human Tired of juggling sales tools or spending hours on prospecting just to book a few meetings? Meet Apollo, the Go to Market platform for finding leads, connecting with buyers and closing deals all in one place. Apollo gives you access to over 210 million contacts and AI that handles all your busywork, finding leads, drafting emails, and even prioritizing your day. So stop paying for five different sales tools when one does it all. Visit Apollo I.O. and sign up free today. If you're into tech, you'll love this. TikTok is a live lab where users post instant reviews of the latest trends. Download TikTok and check it out.

[Commercial Announcer]

Tired of overpaying with DirecTV? Dish offers a reliable low price every month without surprises. Get the TV you love and start watching live sports news and the latest movies, plus your favorite streaming apps all in one place. Switch to Dish today and lock in the lowest price in satellite TV starting at $89.99 a month with our two year price guarantee. Call 888 add dish or visit dish.com today.

[Getty]

Who doesn't want to turn into a radio show that does a deep dive on Humphreys Executor, which is just a great phrase or a great name for a legal case? Humphreys 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 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 Bowden, who joins us on the Armstrong and Getty Show. She's a senior attorney, Equality and Opportunity for the Pacific Legal Foundation. We've talked to her before. We're headed into June, where the Supreme Court releases a lot of their decisions.

[Armstrong]

This is supposed to be the most exciting time. It's the time we're all waiting for. There's only 35 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 did they do? They released two opinions, opinions on federal preemption and arbitration. The facts are so boring. I feel bad even mentioning the topic. It's horrid.

[Getty]

That's fantastic. First of all, why do they wait until the very end to Release these. Is there a strategy there?

[Armstrong]

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, 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 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 dissents, 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.

[Getty]

So we're, I don't know if you heard me mention at least briefly Humphreys 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, 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. And that's what they're looking at.

[Armstrong]

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 1935 that says that Congress can limit the President's ability to fire people in the executive branch. And Congress says, hey, independent agencies, like independence is a good thing, but the

[Getty]

problem is in what branch then their own special fourth branch. I don't understand.

[Armstrong]

That's exactly right. We don't want bureaucrats 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's no they're not elected. They don't answer to the people. So we 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 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.

[Getty]

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 aren't accountable to anybody, which is horrible.

[Armstrong]

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, hey, go enforce them. And then, you know, they have. Congress has no political accountability either. They're like, well, we didn't do it. The bureaucrats are doing it. Blame the bureaucrats.

[Getty]

Right.

[Armstrong]

So they're as much to blame as anyone.

[Getty]

Congress ends up being to blame for lots these days, don't they?

[Armstrong]

They do. And yet they. They seem to evade any accountability for it. They just throw up their hands and say, oh, it's too hard to get anything passed. Oh, it's the bureaucrats.

[Getty]

I really like your style. You know, as a 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 last as long as 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?

[Armstrong]

I mean, the only way out of it is if the people start holding their representatives accountable to themselves and to the Constitution. 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, we have to also 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 do something about that.

[Getty]

I would agree. And the stats I've always liked around this is Congress regularly polls very low, lower now than it's ever polled before for both parties. Like it's in the teens or 20%, but like 95% of congresspeople get reelected.

[Armstrong]

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.

[Getty]

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?

[Armstrong]

I mean.

[Getty]

No, yeah, that's what I think.

[Armstrong]

Fire him. You know, I mean, fire them all. I don't think we're really missing anything. I mean, we have to realize that the principal 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, it 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 going to win out over the long run.

[Getty]

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 in all these different commissions that we all have to follow. And then there's no, there's no way for us to push back.

[Armstrong]

So absolutely, they should be accountable to us.

[Getty]

Hey, Anastasia Bowden. We appreciate your time today. Thank you very much for clarifying that. I love that.

[Armstrong]

Thanks for having me.

[Getty]

Yeah, she's good. Pacific Legal foundation senior attorney Anastasia Bowden. She is fantastic. If you can bring that sort of whimsy to the Humphreys 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 broad law. Tim Sandifer, our other legal friend, talks about this a lot of time. Congress will, 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 human beings. We gotta 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 was fantastic. Fantastic. Get a special gold star to Anastasia or send her an Armstrong and Getty oven mitt or something to let her know how pleased I was with her appearance.

[Armstrong]

Okay, Armstrong and Getty.

[Podcast Advertiser]

Tired of juggling sales tools or spending hours on prospecting just to book a few meetings? Meet Apollo, the Go to Market platform for finding leads, connecting with buyers, and closing deals all in one place. Apollo gives you access to over 210 million contacts and AI that handles all your busy work finding leads, drafting emails, and even prioritizing your day. So stop paying for five different sales tools when one does it all. Visit Apollo IO and sign up free today.

[Getty]

Now with McDonald's. A McDouble is only $2.50, so you can get your gym games on or just get lunch for only $2.50. Get more value on the under $3 menu.

[Commercial Announcer]

Limited time only. Prices and participation may vary. Prices may be higher for delivery. Free.