This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Wednesday, March 2nd, 2022.

I'm Caleb Brown.

Will Yeatman has given us two of the infuriating five administrative law cases.

Now it's time for the cases with an even larger infuriating five administrative law cases.

Now it's time for the cases with an even larger implication

for the size and scope of government.

The final three of the administrative law infuriating five. I want to thank our listeners for appreciating the fact that we blew them off last time by not giving

them the full five.

I appreciate that, but you understand this is the business. We got to generate

listenership. We got to make you salivate a little bit before we get to the really hot stuff and now here we are. You've already detailed two cases for us that were

infuriating with respect to administrative law and now we're at number three. So tell me, let's recap just quickly, the

previous two cases, one, is it simply known as Doe, is that the Webster versus dough. Webster versus dough.

That one not a lot of impact but sort of infuriating on on the basis of we have

statutes that could speak to this that could would inform a court

when trying to interpret what they ought to do.

And the other case was basically decided that in fact the

president of the United States his authority is not unfettered when it comes to regulating the activities of certain federal agencies.

Yes.

And now we're at number three. What is it?

Now we're at number three.

This is a 2005 Supreme Court case,

National Cable and Telecommunications Association

...