News
Power Check
Each week, two hosts break down how government authority actually works, where it's expanding, and who (if anyone) is pushing back.
Listen on
Episodes
The archive
20 episodes, newest first.
- Fed Governor Cook's Four-Hour White House HearingAfter the Supreme Court said Fed Governor Lisa Cook was owed notice and a chance to respond before she could be removed, Trump formed a three-member White House committee to hold a closed-door hearing on Nov. 5, capped at four hours, with a written response due Nov. 10. Grant and Maya walk through what the Court actually required, and whether a hearing run by officials the President appointed counts as a real check or a box-checking exercise. They also cover what a judge could look at next and how the Court's treatment of the Fed differs from its ruling on the FTC in Trump v. Slaughter. The episode closes with the 'check or no check' verdict on the Fed's independence.
- The $810M Pocket Rescission SequelDays before the fiscal year closed, the White House filed a second pocket rescission, this time blocking $810 million in refugee, HHS, and Education funding using the same maneuver it used earlier on foreign aid. That matters because the House won't be back in session until after the midterms, so Congress structurally can't act before the money legally expires. Grant and Maya pick the mechanism apart again, this time following it into domestic budgets, and dig into why a GOP senator like Susan Collins is calling it illegal while the White House moves anyway. They trace the maneuver back to a 2025 Supreme Court order that let an earlier version proceed without ever ruling on its legality, then follow the bigger funding cliff sitting on the calendar for December. The 'check or no check' verdict: the paperwork objections are real, but nothing currently on the books stops the clock before it runs out. Published the week of September 29, 2026.
- The Secretary of State Who Out-Purcelled PurcellMissouri's Secretary of State sat on a 300,000-signature referendum petition against the state's new congressional map for eight months, then rejected it on the one day guaranteed to make a fix hard: primary day itself. That timing matters far beyond Missouri, because it flips a doctrine meant to stop judges from changing election rules at the last minute into a tool an election official can use against voters. Grant and Maya, who've spent the year tracking the Supreme Court's 'too late' doctrine, walk through how the petition sat, what the Secretary said when he finally acted, and how the Missouri Supreme Court and then the federal courts responded once the case escalated to Washington. They cover the broader argument that Purcell has become a one-way ratchet in redistricting fights nationally, and they land on a 'check or no check' verdict about whether the state court's unanimous pushback actually stopped the gamesmanship or just moved the fight somewhere slower. Published the week of September 22, 2026.
- The Court's New "Too Late" Rule for ElectionsOne day after a ruling that seemed to settle nothing, the Supreme Court reversed course: a 7-2 order blocked the Trump administration from enforcing its new USPS mail-ballot rule for the midterms, with Justice Kavanaugh writing the rule might be lawful but simply came too late to implement fairly. Grant and Maya dig into how two district judges — one in Washington relying narrowly on postal law, one in Boston going further into constitutional territory — landed in the same place from different angles, and catch a correction along the way about who actually appointed the Boston judge. The real question the hosts chase: did the Court just invent a durable "too late to implement" doctrine on the fly, one that could shape future election fights long after this case is forgotten? They close with their usual check-or-no-check verdict on whether this improvised timing rule actually constrains executive power or just delays the reckoning. Published the week of September 15, 2026.
Show moreShow less
- Court Struck the Tariffs. The Tariffs Stayed.In February, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the president couldn't use IEEPA to impose tariffs — one of the year's biggest separation-of-powers decisions. It mattered immediately to anyone importing goods, because the government owed potentially $175 billion in refunds. But the tariffs didn't go away. Grant and Maya trace the same-day pivot to Section 122, the expansion of Section 232 and 301 actions, and Treasury's promise that revenue would stay 'virtually unchanged' — then follow the twist when a trade court struck down the replacement tariffs too, with limited practical effect. One host reads this as the system working exactly as designed; the other sees a workaround machine that outpaces judicial review. The episode also separates emergency tariff powers from other statutory-emergency tools, like the Insurrection Act, as a structural distinction worth tracking. Check or no check: the hosts land on a verdict about whether striking down one legal theory is the same thing as stopping a power. Published the week of September 8, 2026.
- Aug 31: How Standing Sank the Ballroom CaseOn August 31, a divided Supreme Court let construction on Trump's $400 million White House ballroom continue, ruling that the National Trust for Historic Preservation likely lacks standing to sue — without ever deciding whether a president can demolish federal property without Congress. Grant and Maya trace how the case moved from a lawsuit over statutory claims to a fight over who's even allowed to ask the question, walking through the National Trust's underlying arguments, the Solicitor General's warning about opening courts to any unhappy visitor, and the surprising dissent from Chief Justice Roberts, who broke with the majority to say the ruling was 'no victory for the separation of powers.' They dig into why standing keeps functioning as the Court's preferred exit from ruling on executive authority, and what that means for future challenges to presidential power over federal property. The 'check or no check' verdict: judicial review is still in the room, but it isn't landing any punches on the merits question yet. Published the week of August 31, 2026.
- The Mail Ballot Ruling That Answered NothingMonday's Supreme Court order let Trump's mail-ballot restrictions move forward by a 6-3 vote, lifting a Massachusetts injunction — but the Postal Service piece of the order stays blocked nationwide, and the Court never touched whether any of it is actually legal. Grant and Maya return to the case they flagged as a Purcell test and find the Court sidestepped the doctrine entirely, resolving things on standing and ripeness instead. They walk through Sotomayor's concurrence calling out the government for wanting it both ways, and Jackson's dissent warning the ruling invites the 'pre-election chaos' Purcell was supposed to prevent. One host sees a functioning, if messy, judicial process; the other sees a procedural trapdoor that lets the executive act while ballots are already printing. They close by weighing whether judicial review checked anything here, or just delayed the question until after it matters. Published the week of August 24, 2026.
- The Mail Ballot Case Hits PurcellThe Solicitor General is asking the Supreme Court to not just rule on Trump's mail-ballot order but to explain why, while a Boston judge stacks a second nationwide injunction on top of the first. Grant and Maya dig into the Purcell principle and whether the emergency docket has any rules at all.
- The Insurrection Act Door Kavanaugh Left OpenGrant and Maya break down what survived Trump v. Illinois, why Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence reads like directions to a different statute, and why the Insurrection Act would be far harder to challenge in court than the law the Supreme Court just narrowed.
- The Mail Ballot Order Hits the Emergency DocketGrant and Maya return to Trump's USPS mail-ballot order now that the Solicitor General has taken it to the Supreme Court with 90 days until the midterms, and ask whether courts can move faster than a printing schedule.
Talent
Talents in this show
Each one has a profile of their own.
About
What the show is
Power Check tracks the real mechanics behind executive orders, agency rulemaking, congressional oversight, and court decisions that redraw the boundaries of state power. Built for policy-aware citizens, government watchers, and anyone who wants to understand how institutional power shapes daily life without the partisan shouting match.
More shows
Elsewhere in the directory
Every one of them is made with Mato.
