This is an I-Heart podcast.

Guaranteed Human.

Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio

at the George Washington Broadcast Center.

Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.

Armstrong and Getty.

And now here's Armstrong and Getty.

Trying to find my paperwork to introduce Anastasia.

I'm able to prepare.

Because I can't just say, hey, here's Anastasia.

It's got to say, there's the 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? Haven't heard of it, but should I be? No, we're going to play the trailer a little bit later, so I was just teasing it. There's a new pickleball movie out. Do you play pickleball? I know it's all the rage, but all I do is study the Supreme Court. I don't have time of pickleball. I've got to keep an eye on these justices, you know? 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? 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?

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. So a big day for us. And you guys won?

Well, it's complicated.

Technically, we lost on the exact question that we asked 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. So what was the case? What was it about? So in there. And our clients still get a second bite at the apple through this opinion. So I'm optimistic.

So what was the case? What was it about? So in this case, the government had seized a $200,000 family

home over a disputed $2,000 tax bill. Almost certainly that tax debt was not owed. An earlier court had

...