And the Interesting Thing is on June 28

Supreme Court Issues its Final Decisions of this Term, With Military Hostilities Over in the Middle East, Now Comes the Posturing

The Supreme Court yesterday issued several significant decisions, the final day for opinion announcements (with the exception of emergency orders that may be filed during the summer) in the 2024-2025 term.

Here’s a summary of the decisions and their potential implications.

· In the day’s most significant decision, the Court voted 6–3 in Trump v. CASA, Inc, to grant the Trump administration’s request to partially pause lower court injunctions that had blocked enforcement of President Trump’s inauguration day executive order ending birthright citizenship (and other orders that have been put on hold by federal district courts). The ruling curtailed the use of universal injunctions—broad court orders that bar the government from enforcing a policy nationwide—even as the Court sidestepped the core constitutional question of whether the order itself is lawful under the 14th Amendment.

o Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, said "universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts…The Court grants the Government's applications for a partial stay of the injunctions, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue." While the Court allowed limited enforcement of Trump’s order, it kept protections in place for pregnant women already involved in the lawsuits. The ruling leaves unresolved how far those injunctions can or should stretch—and invites future litigation in lower courts to determine the appropriate scope. It also opens the door to potential class action suits involving groups not originally part of the litigation but still impacted by the policy.

o Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharply worded dissent, read from the bench—highlighting her strong opposition to the majority decision. “The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempts to hide it. Yet shamefully, this Court plays along.” She argued the rule of law is “not a given,” and the high court “abdicates its vital role” in fighting for its survival in America today. “With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a ‘solemn mockery’ of our Constitution,” Sotomayor wrote. “Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way. Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent.”

o Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson echoed these concerns in a separate dissent, writing “it is important to recognize that the Executive’s bid to vanquish so-called ‘universal injunctions’ is, at bottom, a request for this Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behavior…When the Government says ‘do not allow the lower courts to enjoin executive action universally as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct,’ what it is actually saying is that the Executive wants to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution.” She concluded that the majority’s “decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.”

o While the Supreme Court did not directly rule on the constitutionality of the executive order, it signaled skepticism toward lower courts’ authority to implement sweeping nationwide bans. As a result, litigation over birthright citizenship will likely continue, with the constitutionality of the policy itself still unresolved.

· Age Verification for Online Pornography: in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, the Court voted 6-3 to upheld a Texas law requiring consumers to provide age verification in order to gain access to commercial websites that provide sexually explicit material. It’s the first time that the court has imposed requirements on adult consumers to protect minors from having such access. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote “adults have the right to access speech that is obscene only to minors and, submitting to age verification is a burden on the exercise of that right. But, adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification, and the statute can readily be understood as an effort to restrict minors' access." Thus, Thomas argued, "any burden experienced by adults is therefore only incidental to the statute's regulation of activity that is not protected by the First Amendment. In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan—joined by justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson—said no one disagrees with the paramount importance of protecting children from viewing porn but asks "what if Texas could achieve its interest without so interfering with adults constitutionally protected rights in viewing the speech that HB 1181 covers?” In the two years since Texas passed its law, 23 states have adopted similar laws requiring adult websites users verify users’ ages to access pornographic material.

· Religious Opt-Outs in Schools: Cases: In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Court ruled that a group of Montgomery County, MD parents have a right to opt their elementary-school-aged children out of instruction that includes LGBTQ+ themes. By a vote of 6-3, the justices agreed with the parents – who are Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox – that the county school board’s refusal to provide them with that option violates their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor warned that Friday’s decision “threatens the very essence of a public education” because it “strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society.”

· Affordable Care Act (ACA) Preventive Care: In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, the Court upheld a key provision of the ACA, ensuring, at least for now, that some 150 million people will continue getting many free, preventive services under the law. The vote was 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh joining the court's three liberal justices in the majority. At issue was a lawsuit that sought to undo the preventive care provision by challenging the appointment process for members of a 16-person task force that determines which preventive services are to be provided for free under insurance policies. Two lower courts in Texas and the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the appointments were unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh said the Department of Health and Human Services has the power to appoint members of the task force. "Task Force members are supervised and directed by the Secretary, who in turn answers to the President, preserving the chain of command in Article II," Kavanaugh wrote. Of course, the current HHS Secretary’s proven track record of purging task force members gives many people some pause.

· Internet and Phone Service Subsidies: in Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research, the Court upheld an $8 billion federal program providing subsidized internet and phone service to underserved communities. The vote was 6-3. Conservative groups challenged the program, contending that Congress exceeded its powers in enacting legislation that delegated to the FCC the task of operating the Universal Service Fund, a program that provides subsidized telephone and internet services to rural healthcare providers, schools and libraries, and low-income Americans. But the Court ruled that Congress did not exceed its authority under the Telecommunications Act 1996 that established the Universal Service Fund. "We hold that no impermissible transfer of authority has occurred," wrote Justice Kagan, who was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, as well as conservative Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Three conservative justices—Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito—dissented.

And the interesting thing is, the president and his allies hailed the nationwide injunction ruling as a decisive victory for his administration. In a rare appearance in the White House briefing room, the president promised to move his sweeping second term agenda forward with lower court judges’ injunctive power now significantly curtailed. “It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation.” The decision means his administration can now move forward on a “whole list” of policy priorities that were frozen nationwide by federal judges, he argued, from birthright citizenship to freezing federal funding. “We have so many of them,” Trump said.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, long on performative tough talk, but short on actual details, was unable to answer basic questions on the ruling and its implications for the Justice Department in implementing the president’s immigration policies, choosing instead to suggest that “the violent criminals in our country are the priority now.” That answer runs counter to ICE’s own records that 65% of people taken by ICE had no convictions and 93% had no violent convictions.

Senate May Begin Voting on its Version of the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Today

After releasing the final version of the bill text shortly before midnight, Republicans leadership has signaled that it wants to the bring the now 940-page “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” to the Senate floor for a procedural vote at 2:00 today—even as Senate Majority Leader John Thune acknowledged the timing was “aspirational.”

But whether they’ll be able to clear that simple majority is a major question. “We will find out tomorrow,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said on Friday when asked if he has 51 votes. With a 53-47 majority, Republicans can lose no more than three members, and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has long said he is opposed to the bill as long as the $5 trillion debt ceiling hike is included. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), one of the Senate’s most vulnerable Republicans heading into the 2026 midterm elections indicated last night that he is a “no” on proceeding to the bill over the Senate’s planned rollback of an existing federal cap on provider taxes, a deeper cut to Medicaid than the freeze in the House-passed measure that Tillis prefers.

Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) have not committed to voting yes on any procedural votes, or for final passage, if their concerns about Medicaid cuts remain unsolved. The votes of Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Jerry Moran (R-KS), who are also concerned about Medicaid cuts, are also in doubt. Both have raised alarms about what hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid cuts and changes in eligibility and work requirements would mean for their states. Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Rick Scott (R-FL) have signaled they may vote as a bloc, and all 3 have various issues with the bill. It’s no guarantee that Sen. Thune can keep enough Republicans in line, but the president canceled weekend golf plans and stands ready to apply pressure despite his own mixed messaging yesterday. In the press conference yesterday celebrating Supreme Court decisions, the president said the July 4 deadline he set for Congress to pass is “important. It’s not the end all.” He then revised his remarks on Truth Social, writing that “The House of Representatives must be ready to send it to my desk before July 4th.”

After the bill gets the necessary votes to proceed, there will be up to 20 hours of debate, evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. Once the floor “debate” concludes, the Senate can proceed to what sounds like fun –a “vote-a-rama”—but is actually a legislative slog in which senators can propose an unlimited number of amendments to bills considered under reconciliation bills like the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Here’s a nice video primer on the vote-a-rama. During a vote-a-rama, senators briefly explain the amendment before the Senate proceeds to a roll call with a 10-minute duration. There is no procedural limit on the number of amendments that can be proposed, it’s mostly a matter of stamina and will. In 2021 budget reconciliation, there were 47 amendments, dramatically slowing the process.

In addition to vote-a-rama’s, another unique feature of budget reconciliation bills is the role of the Senate parliamentarian. The parliamentarian serves as the Senate’s referee, ruling on its complex rules and procedures, and when congress uses the budget reconciliation process, becomes the key gatekeeper. Under the so-called Byrd Rule—a set of Senate restrictions on reconciliation bills—the parliamentarian reviews every provision to determine if it is “germane” to federal revenues or outlays, or if it creates new spending or deficits beyond a ten‐year window. Any provision deemed “extraneous” must be stricken unless 60 senators vote to override the ruling. This ensures reconciliation stays narrowly focused on budgetary matters and cannot be used to enact unrelated policy riders.

Typically unknown to the public, the current parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, has become a bit of a celebrity by striking down more than a dozen provisions in the bill (to date). Medicaid provider tax changes designed to help offset $2.4 trillion in tax cuts were among the most consequential provisions struck down, but she also ruled that amendments barring gender-affirming care and preventing unauthorized immigrants from accessing Medicaid or CHIP, fall outside the reconciliation process’s strict budgetary focus. For those calling her a partisan hack, she voted against Senate Democrats’ inclusion of minimum wage hikes and immigration reforms in his 2021 covid relief bills.

And the interesting thing is, earlier this week, the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) released a fantastical report that is alone in projecting the One Big Beautiful Act (paired with other Trump administration policies), will create an economic growth surge would slash the deficit by $8.5 trillion to $11.1 trillion over ten years. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released multiple analyses of the bill in its current form and projected that it would increase the federal deficit from anywhere between $2.4 billion to $2.8 billion. In addition to government estimates, private analyses have also included that the bill would blow up the debt. The Penn-Wharton Budget Model estimates that the bill that passed the House would increase cumulative deficits by $2.8 trillion over the next decade. The Budget Lab at Yale projects that the version of the bill that the Senate Finance Committee passed last week would add $4.1 trillion to the debt by 2034.

The CEA arrived at their remarkably rosy prediction by assuming economic growth of 4.6% to 4.9% over the next decade. Historically, the average GDP growth in the U.S. has been around 3.1% and no president since Bill Clinton has averaged even 4% growth. To put it in comparison, the CBO projected economic growth of 0.5% (when factoring in expected higher inflation). Even the right-leaning Tax Foundation projects GDP growth of 0.8% to 1.1% over the next 10 years. Fortunately, the CEA is not an official budget projection because it stands alone in its analysis—and not in a good way

Senate Rejects War Power Resolution

In a 53–47 vote last night, the Senate rejected a Democratic-led war powers resolution that would have required President Trump to secure congressional authorization before launching any further military strikes against Iran. The measure, S.J. 59, was sponsored by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and sought to invoke the War Powers Act of 1973, which requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent. The vote fell largely along party lines, with all but one Democrat supporting the resolution and most Republicans opposing it. The only Democrat to vote “no” was Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), a vocal backer of Israel, while Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) crossed party lines to vote “yes.”

In a Senate floor speech, Kaine said “I think the events of this week have demonstrated that war is too big to be consigned to the decision of any one person…I pray the ceasefire continues, but I fear we're going to be back here on this floor, and I hope when we are on this floor again, members of this body will stand for the proposition that has been part of our history—that war is too big an issue to allow one person to make the decision that sends our sons and daughters into harm's way."

Opponents of the resolution, led on the floor by Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN), argued that the president, as commander-in-chief, must retain the ability to respond swiftly to evolving threats. “President Trump’s actions to address Iran’s nuclear weapons program last weekend did not start a war—they ended one. I cannot—and will not—support a resolution that removes the ability of the President of the United States to act decisively in defense of our national interests, our allies, and our armed forces. That is the job of a Commander-in-Chief.”

While the Senate vote effectively kills this particular resolution, two similar measures remain pending in the House. Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA) co-sponsored one, and committee ranking members Reps. Jim Himes (D-CT), Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and Adam Smith (D-WA) introduced another. Either could be brought to the floor, but House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) will likely not bring them to the floor given his violent opposition to the resolutions, and as he revealed this week, the War Powers Act itself.

And the interesting thing is, while there was a school of thought that the resolution was a moot point as the ceasefire in the Iran-Israel conflict held for a fourth straight day, the president himself continues to make clear that he’s prepared to launch additional strikes as he—and he alone—sees fit. As recently as yesterday afternoon, he told reporters that he would bomb Iran again “without question” if intelligence suggested they were continuing to try to enrich uranium.

President Cuts Off Trade Talks with Canada

The president abruptly cut off trade talks with Canada on Friday over its tax targeting U.S. technology firms, writing on Truth Social that Canada’s 3% digital service tax is a "blatant attack," and that he would set a new tariff rate on Canadian goods within the next week.

The move plunges US-Canada relations back into chaos after a period of relative calm that included a cordial G7 meeting in mid-June where Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney agreed to wrap up a new economic agreement within 30 days.

“We have a great relationship with the people of Canada,” Trump told journalists in the Oval Office on Friday afternoon. But he added: “We have all the cards, every single one. We don’t want to do anything bad but economically we have such power over Canada.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on CNBC that the U.S. Trade Representative could soon start a Section 301 trade investigation to determine the harm being done to the American economy from Canada’s trade practices.

At issue is the digital-service tax, a levy on revenue that companies make from Canadian users. The levies are due on Monday and would likely cost U.S. tech companies billions of dollars. It includes retroactive taxes on sales going back to 2022, and industry groups estimate the initial payment could total up to $3 billion, with subsequent annual payments north of $1 billion. “Obviously, we think it’s patently unfair to do it retroactively,” Treasury Secretary Bessent said in his CNBC interview. “This is something from the Trudeau years so we were hoping as a sign of goodwill that the new Carney administration would at least put a brake on that during the trade talks. They seem not to have.”

The president also hit out at Canadian agricultural policy, a long-standing area of contention dating back to his first term. “They have charged our Farmers as much as 400% Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products,” he wrote in his Truth Social post on Friday. Canada recently passed legislation on “supply management” measures to protect its dairy industry through price setting and production quotas — a system described by Trump in 2017 as a “disgrace”

And the interesting thing is, the president’s decision to cut off trade talks with Canada yesterday was not the only tariff news. Earlier in the day, the treasury secretary signaled that the Trump administration’s tariff negotiations with more than a dozen trading partners could stretch until September. “We have 18 important trading partners—U.K., China are behind us for now and then Secretary Howard Lutnick said yesterday that he expects 10 more deals. So, if we can ink 10 or 12 of the important 18 — there are another important 20 relationships — then I think we could have trade wrapped up by Labor Day,” Bessent told Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo.

The president also told reporters the previously announced July deadline remains flexible during his wide-ranging press conference Friday afternoon. “We can do whatever we want,” Trump said. “We could extend it, we could make it shorter. I’d like to make it shorter. I’d like to just send letters out to everybody: ‘Congratulations, you’re paying 25 percent.’”

The comments echo similar messaging from other administration officials, including White House Council of Economic Advisers Chair Stephen Miran, who said Thursday that Trump may decide to extend the previously announced July 8 deadline for certain countries. That same day, White House Press Secretary Karoline Lavitt said at her press briefing that “the deadline is not critical,” adding that the president “can simply provide these countries with the deal if they refuse to make us one by the deadline," which would involve setting “a reciprocal tariff rate that he believes is advantageous for the United States.”

That’s all for today. See you back here again tomorrow!