The Capitol Hill Reader #100 - Recent Actions of the President, Congress, and the Courts
The (usually) weekly government digest
Hello Readers,
Welcome to the ONE HUNDREDTH ISSUE OF THE CAPITOL HILL READER!
When we started this newsletter in November of last year, it’s safe to say we had no idea what we were getting ourselves into. We didn’t know just how long we would spend pouring over innumerable government documents, directives, congressional records, court opinions, memoranda, and more.
We didn’t know about the “Friday Night Types” marathons to get the (sometimes typo ridden) Saturday newsletter out, the judging stares from the family terrier, the increase in caffeine intake. Constantly wondering about where our country is going, about where we’ve been, about our own families, and about the cyclical nature of history. It truly does repeat itself in alarming detail.
It can be a lot. But it’s worth it.
SO: Thank you for being here, thank you for supporting us when we feel overwhelmed, discouraged, or burnt out, and thank you for sticking around.
NOW TELL YOUR FRIENDS PLEASE. SUBSCRIBE IF YOU’D LIKE.
Let’s get started.
Notable Executive Orders and Memoranda 6/30 - 7/7
The titles used below are the same as on the White House executive actions page, which can be seen here.
July 7, 2025
Executive Order - EXTENDING THE MODIFICATION OF THE RECIPROCAL TARIFF RATES
This executive order extends a temporary pause on Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs” with certain foreign partners (see the long list here) who have made “significant steps to remedy non-reciprocal trade arrangements and align sufficiently with the United States on economic and national security matters” [8]. Per the order, rather than receiving the high “reciprocal tariff” of 11-50%, these countries pay “an additional ad valorem rate of duty of 10 percent” as a reward for trade compliance [8].
These 10% tariffs were originally set to expire on July 9, 2025, and this new order pushes that deadline to August 1, 2025 [8]. That said, it explicitly leaves separate tariffs on Chinese imports unchanged [8].
“EXTENDING THE MODIFICATION OF THE RECIPROCAL TARIFF RATES” builds on two earlier executive actions - one that declared a national emergency due to the U.S.'s large and ongoing trade deficits, and another that temporarily reduced tariffs in recognition of foreign governments showing a willingness to cooperate and comply [8]. As stated above, the pause is intended to give the listed countries additional time to align more closely with U.S. trade and national security interests; the Trump administration argues that this step is necessary and appropriate based on updated recommendations from senior officials and the status of trade talks, but it is also an increase in leverage.
Implementation is delegated to key federal agencies, including the Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security, as well as the U.S. Trade Representative. These entities are authorized to adjust regulations and enforce the order, giving them broad authority to move regulatory barriers when needed [8].
Memorandum - Ensuring Accountability and Prioritizing Public Safety in Federal Hiring
This is a hiring freeze for all open civilian positions in the executive branch through October 15, 2025 [9]. Here is an excerpt:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, the following policy shall govern the hiring of Federal civilian employees within the Executive Branch through October 15, 2025: no Federal civilian position that is presently vacant may be filled, and no new position may be created, except as otherwise provided for in this memorandum or required by applicable law. In addition, any hiring shall be consistent with the Merit Hiring Plan that was issued by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on May 29, 2025, pursuant to Executive Order 14170 of January 20, 2025 (Reforming the Federal Hiring Process and Restoring Merit to Government Service) [9,10].
The memorandum does not apply to military, immigration enforcement, or other positions relating to national security [9].
Here is the OPM’s Merit Hiring Plan.
Executive Order - ENDING MARKET DISTORTING SUBSIDIES FOR UNRELIABLE, FOREIGN CONTROLLED ENERGY SOURCES
This executive order directs the federal government to eliminate or reduce financial support for wind, solar, and other renewable energy projects that it refers to as "unreliable" and "expensive” [11]. It states that such subsidies distort the energy market, threaten grid reliability, harm the natural environment, and create national security risks due to reliance on foreign-controlled supply chains [11].
The order builds on provisions in the recently passed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which repealed or modified significant clean energy tax credits. Specifically, the Department of the Treasury is instructed to enforce the end of tax credits for wind and solar energy by tightening rules and guidance around when construction begins on eligible projects, to prevent projects from rushing to qualify before the rules change.
Treasury is also tasked with implementing stronger restrictions related to foreign entities involved in renewable energy supply chains. At the same time, the Department of the Interior is directed to review and revise any regulations or practices that give wind and solar energy preferential treatment over more traditional energy sources like fossil fuels [11]. Both departments are required to report back to the President within 45 days on the actions they’ve taken towards implementation.
July 3, 2025
Executive Order - ESTABLISHING THE PRESIDENT’S MAKE AMERICA BEAUTIFUL AGAIN COMMISSION
This executive order directs federal agencies to expand access to public lands for outdoor recreation, such as hunting, fishing, hiking, and off-roading, while promoting economic growth through the “outdoor economy” [1]. It establishes the "Make America Beautiful Again Commission," composed of cabinet-level officials, to advise the President on conservation policy and coordinate efforts across agencies.
Notably, the order prioritizes initiatives like “voluntary conservation,” drastically reduced environmental regulations, and collaboration with state and local partners to restore natural resources, recover wildlife populations, and improve access to clean water and recreational areas [1].
What is voluntary conservation?
In short, “voluntary conservation” is a system where citizens or private entities are expected to do the right thing on their own without having numerous regulations governing their behavior; people in the outdoors are supposed to be stewards of the forest because…well, just because. Under this model, there are no strong regulatory protections in place, and because of this, individuals or groups could misuse or damage natural areas - like littering, damaging trails, disturbing wildlife, or polluting water sources - without facing legal consequences, especially if enforcement is weak or nonexistent.
Through this model, the Trump administration allegedly seeks to “restore” America’s forests and wild animal populations, expand clean drinking water access to the public, and other similar initiatives through “collaboration, not regulation” [1].
Executive Order - MAKING AMERICA BEAUTIFUL AGAIN BY IMPROVING OUR NATIONAL PARKS
This executive order seeks to increase National Park entrance fees and recreation pass fees for foreign tourists, while attempting to increase “affordability” of these experiences for U.S. residents [2]. The funds gained from the increases will be used to improve park infrastructure and to “otherwise enhance enjoyment of or access to, America’s Federal recreational areas, consistent with 16 U.S.C. 6807” [2].
Aside from this, the order also requires, “the Secretary of the Interior [to] review all of the Department’s recreational access rules and take steps to rescind any that unnecessarily restrict recreation in national parks. In conducting this review, the Secretary of the Interior shall especially scrutinize all recreational access rules or other restrictions promulgated or enacted during the prior administration” [2].
It’s unclear what this second caveat actually means, or under which guidelines older access rules will be examined and/or rescinded. It also isn’t specified how extreme the changes will be - as in, will this simply mean an increase in permits issued in various lottery systems (like hunting), or will it include other major shifts, like potentially allowing ATV use in wilderness areas.
We will notify you when more information becomes available, especially surrounding implementation.
June 30, 2025
Executive Order - PROVIDING FOR THE REVOCATION OF SYRIA SANCTIONS
This executive order outlines a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy toward Syria under the country’s new President, former al-Qaeada commander and ISIS affiliate Ahmed al-Sharaa [3]. It rolls back longstanding sanctions that were originally imposed due to the actions of the Bashar al-Assad regime, and seeks to help reestablish Syria as a member of the international community.
Beginning with the revocation of multiple executive orders - ranging from the original 2004 declaration of a national emergency (E.O. 13338) through subsequent sanctions targeting Syrian officials and the government - the order terminates or relaxes sanctions and export controls on Syria, while maintaining potential consequences for those involved in terrorism, human rights abuses, or narcotics trafficking, particularly involving the stimulant drug captagon [3].
It directs the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and Commerce to issue waivers and revise export control restrictions and to use all available mechanisms - including those under the Caesar Act, Syria Accountability Act, and the Chemical and Biological Weapons (CBW) Act - to facilitate “normalization” where appropriate, including the reinstatement of trade in specific items and the lifting of restrictions on foreign assistance, financing, technology exports, and more [3].
At the same time, the order expands the scope of sanctions under Executive Order 13894 (Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Syria) to specifically target former Assad-era officials and actors involved in obstructing Syria’s political transition, war crimes, and/or expropriation of property [3]. It reaffirms sanctions on terrorist entities such as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and continues to designate various individuals as Specially Designated Global Terrorists.
Per al-Sharaa at the Syrian Revolutionary Victory Conference in January of this year, his administration’s current priorities include: “filling the power vacuum, maintaining civil peace, building state institutions, developing the economy, and restoring Syria's international and regional standing” [4].
Memorandum- NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM/NSPM-5
This presidential memorandum revises and reissues the United States' policy framework toward Cuba, reinforcing a hardline approach focused on pressuring the Cuban government while attempting to support the Cuban people [22].
It replaces previous presidential directives, including those from the Bush and Obama administrations, with a stated emphasis on human rights, democratic reform, economic sanctions, and combating authoritarianism [22]. The memorandum reaffirms full enforcement the 1996 embargo and bans tourism, prohibits most financial transactions with entities linked to Cuba’s military or intelligence sectors, and mandates greater scrutiny of travel to ensure compliance these restrictions [22].
It directs agencies to publish lists of restricted Cuban entities (such as GAESA), prohibit related financial dealings, and revise educational and support-related travel regulations to “ensure meaningful engagement with Cuban civil society” [22]. It also instructs the Treasury Department to audit Cuba-related travel and update the definition of “prohibited Cuban officials” [22].
Beyond economic and travel policy, the memorandum outlines broader foreign policy goals. It directs the State Department and other agencies to oppose international efforts to lift the embargo until Cuba meets the conditions for a “transition government” under the 1996 LIBERTAD Act [22]. It calls for regular reports on Cuba’s human rights record and fugitives from U.S. justice who reside in Cuba, and it reaffirms U.S. policy against the “Wet Foot, Dry Foot” migration framework [22].
This meant that if a Cuban national trying to immigrate to the US was caught at sea, they were returned to Cuba; that said, if they made it to US soil, they were given access to parole and the possibility of lawful permanent status after one year, per the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966. This was ended in 2017 by President Barack Obama.
Per this memorandum, the Trump administration emphasizes expanding internet access and independent media in Cuba, enhancing democratic aid programs, and, most importantly, coordinating interagency strategies to counter unlawful migration to the United States [22].
Overall, the memorandum seeks to isolate the Cuban regime economically and diplomatically while encouraging private enterprise and civil liberties for the Cuban people - making clear that U.S. engagement with Cuba must align with US interests.
A quick aside from our usual programming -
We lost our basset Bojangles Maximus Swanson III a year ago this month, so in his honor, we will be running a 50% off deal for the month of July. Below is a picture of his majesty.
You can also buy us a coffee here.
*Current paid subscribers, introduce yourself in the chat! We would love to collaborate on ideas, and we already have several “Paid Exclusive” articles in the works thanks to you. We want these to be where YOU choose the topic.*
The Final Passage and Signing of H.R.1: the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”
A quick note: virtually all activity on the Hill since our last post revolved around the OBBB, so this week’s Congress coverage is a short rundown of the Act’s final legislative approval.
After narrowly passing the Senate on July 1- with Vice President J.D. Vance breaking a 50–50 tie for a final tally of 51 YEAS to 50 NAYS - the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” was sent back to the House for final approval of the Senate’s various adjustments [20].
Although the House of Representatives had previously passed its own version of the bill, it was required to vote again on the revised package due to significant changes made in the Senate, including stricter Medicaid work requirements, modified SNAP eligibility, and removal of certain regulatory repeals under the Byrd Rule, especially surrounding environmental policy and EVs [20]. This also included things like the controversial AI moratorium, which failed to pass the Senate on a yea-and-nay vote of 99 YEAS to 1 NAY (with the 1 Nay being Sen. Thom Thillis [R-NC]) [20].
Speaker of the House Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) moved swiftly to secure votes, working behind the scenes with both Freedom Caucus hardliners and moderate Republicans and using a “closed rule” to prevent new amendments. This effectively ended the reconciliation process and brought the bill to hard-line, yea-or-nay vote.
While some House conservatives expressed frustration that the Senate had stripped out the aforementioned regulatory rollbacks, they ultimately agreed to vote yes after being promised future standalone votes on those issues [21]. Also, Republican lawmakers were under considerable pressure from the President to pass the bill before July 4 - a symbolic, self-imposed deadline.
On the other side of the aisle, Democrats in both the House and Senate remained unified in opposition, criticizing the bill’s impact on vulnerable populations. Of particular note are the
sharp reductions in funding for Medicaid and rural healthcare, with an estimated 11 million people set to lose medical coverage and numerous hospitals and programs threatened with closure;
the rescinding of environmental incentives like low-emission transit, methane monitoring, and clean port initiatives, among others;
the elimination of community-based support services and legal aid for immigrants of any status, alongside a surge in funding for border security;
the continuation of Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, with the lowest-income Americans (making $40,000 or less per year) facing a significant reduction in income — in other words, the less you make, the more negative the affects of the OBBB on your livelihood [21].
The final House vote was 218–214, with two Republicans crossing the aisle to vote no — Reps. Massie (R-KY) and Fitzpatrick (R-PA) [20].
Within 48 hours of House approval, the bill was enrolled and presented to President Trump, who signed it into law in a televised ceremony at the White House [7].
On this, Trump said: “I want to tell you that I’ve never seen people so happy in our country because so many different groups of people are being taken care of; the military, civilians of all types, jobs of all types. We’re adding things like the biggest tax cut in the history of our country. So may things are being added that you — we wouldn’t even have time to discuss them when we were doing it” [7].
He also called the bill “the most popular bill ever signed” [7].
Important Federal Court Cases
A digest of two Supreme Court cases, two Circuit Court cases, and two District Court cases.
Supreme Court
Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. (July 3, 2025)
This case involves a legal challenge to the federal government’s efforts to deport certain noncitizens to third countries - places not listed in their original removal orders - without prior notice or an opportunity to seek protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) [17]. In other words, an undocumented immigrant could be deported to, say, Africa, instead of their native Venezuela.
The case was originally brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by a group of asylum seekers, including a Cuban man identified as D.V.D., who argued that sudden deportation to unfamiliar third countries would expose them to persecution or torture and violate both federal immigration law and international obligations [17]. On April 18, 2025, the district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking such removals and later followed it with a May 21 remedial order, which required the government to give advance notice and procedural protections - such as the ability to request CAT relief - to potential deportees [17].
The Department of Homeland Security appealed to the Supreme Court and, on June 23, the Court granted an emergency stay of the preliminary injunction, allowing deportations to proceed temporarily.
Confusion later emerged when the district court declared its May 21 remedial order still in effect, despite the Supreme Court’s stay, prompting the federal government to file a motion for clarification. On July 3, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a brief order granting that motion and explicitly stating that the remedial order was also stayed [17]. The Court explained that once the underlying injunction had been paused, the lower court’s follow-up measures could no longer be enforced.
Justices Sotomayor and Jackson dissented, warning that the ruling left vulnerable individuals at risk of being sent to dangerous countries without a chance to argue their case, violating constitutional and humanitarian protections [17].
The decision means that, barring further legal action, the federal government can resume deportations of individuals to third countries - at least until the case is fully resolved in a lower court.
Montana v. Planned Parenthood of Montana (July 3, 2025)
This case centered on a 2013 state law requiring physicians to obtain notarized written parental consent or secure a judicial waiver before performing an abortion on minors under 18 - a statute that never took effect due to ongoing legal challenges [18]. Planned Parenthood of Montana and Dr. Samuel Dickman had sued in Montana State Court, arguing that the law violated the Montana Constitution’s guarantees of privacy, equal protection, and free speech [18,19]. The Thirteenth Judicial District Court (a state court) granted a permanent injunction, later upheld unanimously by the Montana Supreme Court; the Montana high court ruled the law infringed on minors’ fundamental right to reproductive autonomy and was not narrowly tailored to justify its restrictions [19].
The State appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking a ruling that parental rights under the federal Constitution require such consent. On July 3, 2025, the Supreme Court denied certiorari, allowing the state court’s decision to stand [18]. Justices Alito and Thomas noted that their refusal was based on procedural issues rather than a judgment on parental-rights arguments, describing the case as a “poor vehicle” for resolving the federal constitutional question [18].
As a result, the Montana Supreme Court’s judgment invalidating the parental-consent law remains in effect, though another parental consent law surrounding minors’ abortions in Montana still stands. Unlike the invalidated 2013 law, which required notarized parental consent or a judicial waiver for an abortion to be performed, the remaining notification statute simply requires that a parent or legal guardian be informed before an abortion is performed on a minor. It does not give the parent legal power to veto the procedure.
Circuit Courts
The United States of America v. State of Texas (5th Circuit, July 4, 2025)
In United States v. Texas, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the constitutionality of Texas Senate Bill 4 (S.B. 4), which criminalizes illegal entry and reentry into the state by noncitizens and empowers state judges to order their removal [16].
S.B.4 had been challenged by the federal government, several nonprofit immigration advocacy groups (including Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center), and the County of El Paso in January of 2024 [16].
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas initially granted a preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement of S.B. 4, on the grounds that the law likely conflicted with federal immigration authority and would irreparably harm groups like Las Americas by diverting their resources and impeding their mission to provide legal assistance to migrants [16]. Texas officials appealed the injunction.
After the Trump administration began in January of 2025, the federal government voluntarily dismissed its complaint in March, leaving only the nonprofit and local plaintiffs [16].
In a July 3 opinion written by Judge Priscilla Richman, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s injunction but narrowed the focus to Las Americas’ claims against Texas Department of Public Safety Director Freeman Martin [16]. The court held that Las Americas had standing because the law directly burdened its legal services operations and that the organization had shown it would suffer irreparable harm.
The district court rejected Texas’s argument that S.B. 4 was authorized under the Constitution’s “State War Clause” and determined that enforcement by state officials like Director Martin would likely interfere with federal immigration powers, thus violating the Supremacy Clause [16].
In summary, the decision blocks S.B. 4’s enforcement by certain Texas officials, maintains protections for immigrant advocacy groups, and signals at least some judicial skepticism of state-led immigration enforcement that overlaps or contradicts federal authority.
Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc (Federal Circuit, July 7, 2025)
In Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a Massachusetts district court finding that Cisco’s Unified Computing System (UCS) did not infringe Egenera’s U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430, which claims a server platform that automatically virtualizes system configurations via software [15].
The US District Court for the District of Massachusetts had granted summary judgment of noninfringement on claims 1 and 5 - finding that Cisco’s CPUs didn’t include the required "network emulation logic" - and a jury later returned a verdict of noninfringement for claims 3 and 7 [15]. Egenera appealed both rulings. Yesterday, the appeals court unanimously rejected Egenera’s arguments, concluding that “no reasonable jury” could find infringement on claims 1 and 5 and that the jury’s verdict on claims 3 and 7 was supported by substantial evidence regarding network topology limitations [15].
Egenera had argued that Cisco’s virtualized network features - such as virtual NICs - met the patent terms, but the court held these functions occurred outside the CPUs and thus didn’t “emulate Ethernet functionality” as required [15]. The decision ends Egenera’s efforts to revive over $371 million in damages previously sought for alleged disguised patent infringement
District Courts
Democracy Forward Foundation v. DOJ (District of Columbia, July 8, 2025)
On July 8, 2025, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta dismissed a lawsuit brought by several organizations and several state Attorneys General challenging the Department of Justice's decision to cancel approximately $800 million in violence-reduction and victim-support grants [14]. Per the AP.
The five organizations named as plaintiffs sought class status to represent all affected grant recipients. Attorneys General from at least 18 states and the District of Columbia had filed amicus briefs in support of the action, as well as local governments and prosecuting attorneys- several of whom had lost grants for victims programs, alternatives to prosecution programs or others [14].
The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to block the cancellations, arguing they violated due process and infringed on Congress's power to appropriate federal funds.
While Judge Mehta ruled that the court lacked jurisdiction and found no constitutional violation, he called the DOJ’s actions “shameful” for their impact on vulnerable communities [14]. Despite this, he emphasized that judicial displeasure does not automatically translate into legal grounds for relief. The dismissal means the DOJ may proceed with reallocating the funds under its “revised priorities.”
Kilmar Abrego-Garcia v. DHS (Update July 7, 2025)
Over the past week, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, of the US District Court for the District of Maryland, examined the case of Kilmar Abrego-Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was deported to El Salvador in March, 2025, despite a 2019 order of protection [12]. Addressing inconsistencies in the government’s position, Judge Xinis likened clarifying DOJ’s arguments to “nailing jello to a wall.” She ruled that Abrego’s challenge to his deportation may proceed, noting unresolved issues related to whether the government complied with the earlier order [12].
Although the administration recently returned him to the U.S. and plans to pursue new proceedings, DOJ officials confirmed that they will try to deport Abrego-Garcia before his trial concludes if he is released on bail; this deportation would be to a third country and not to his native El Salvador [13].
Judge Xinis ordered government officials to clarify their future intentions and to explain whether his indictment for alleged human smuggling is tied to efforts to send him back to El Salvador [12].
We will keep you updated on this one, Readers.
Thank You
If you have made it this far, we appreciate your consideration and trust! We are a small fish in an ever-growing Substack pond, so you choosing to read the Capitol Hill Reader means a lot to us.
We love what we do. If you’d like to show us some totally optional but greatly appreciated support, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber today!
In memorial to our late, great Basset Hound named Bojangles, we are running a 50% off deal for the month of July. We had him since he was like a tiny floppy potato until the ripe old age of 14.5, so he had a long, wonderful life.
Here is a picture of Sir Jangles gazing upon an alpine lake in his younger years (he’s probably 5 here):
Until next time Readers. Stay informed.
Works Cited
1.) https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/establishing-the-presidents-make-america-beautiful-again-commission/
2.) https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/making-america-beautiful-again-by-improving-our-national-parks/
3.) https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/06/providing-for-the-revocation-of-syria-sanctions/
4.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_al-Sharaa#De_facto_leader_of_Syria_(2024–2025)
5.)https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_119_1.htm
6.) https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2025190?Page=2
7.) https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/trump-hails-big-beautiful-bill-as-greatest-victory-yet-as-he-signs-it-into-law/ar-AA1HZQbb?ocid=TobArticle
8.) https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/extending-the-modification-of-the-reciprocal-tariff-rates/
9.) https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/ensuring-accountability-and-prioritizing-public-safety-in-federal-hiring/
10.) https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/donald-trump/2025
11.) https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/ending-market-distorting-subsidies-for-unreliable-foreign%E2%80%91controlled-energy-sources/
12.) https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/07/kilmar-abrego-garcia-deportation-hearing-00441492
13.) https://apnews.com/article/kilmar-abrego-garcia-deportation-trump-lawsuit-13de4083d83023e4b5feace4b7f8ea24
14.) https://apnews.com/article/justice-grants-funding-cuts-law-enforcement-victims-327796a0357136f244475603dc48f854
15.) https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-1428.OPINION.7-7-2025_2540120.pdf
16.)https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/dwpkldkobvm/sb4.pdf
17.) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_2co3.pdf
18.) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-745_7758.pdf
19.) https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-abortion-montana-minors-parental-consent-0f7b1198b0c8af2a9a17f38bccd8217c
20.) https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/all-actions?s=3&r=1&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22H.R.1%22%7D
21.) https://www.npr.org/2025/07/03/nx-s1-5455069/house-republicans-obbb-big-beautiful-bill-trump
22.) https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/06/national-security-presidential-memorandum-nspm-5/
As always, thank you so much for your explanations. I can't imagine how much work this takes, and I hope that you prioritize your own health and well-being. Mental wellness is the reason I took a major step back from reading the news en masse, and I am so appreciative to have your interpretations so that I don't have to wade through all the sewage myself! I hope that you are able to do all of this without letting it drag you down. Your newsletter is more than worth paying for, and infinitely more valuable than the vast majority of "free" content out there. ("Free" because there's always a cost: in this case, dubious accuracy and subsequent threats to sanity.) Thank you again.