The Capitol Hill Reader 148: NSPM-11, DHS Funding, Gerrymandering, and Other Fun Government Things
Some civic tidbits for your brain
Hello Readers,
Lots of stuff to talk about today. We’ve got a new National Security Presidential Memorandum on AI, a Senate vote-o-rama that got pretty dramatic in terms of amendments, five cases from the Supreme Court, and more! Good times!
The Actions of the President
June 5, 2026
Memorandum - NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM/NSPM-11
This memorandum is a national security directive focused on “accelerating the adoption of artificial intelligence across the U.S. military and intelligence community” while “maintaining human oversight and constitutional safeguards.” It establishes four core principles:
adoption,
adaptation,
assurance,
and accountability.
Under these guidelines, agencies are directed to rapidly integrate “advanced commercial and government-developed AI systems” into defense and intelligence operations. The Secretary of Defense and the DNI are also ordered to create an “AI for National Security Curriculum,” which will “ensure that relevant personnel across the national security enterprise are trained to employ AI systems in accordance with applicable guidance and maintain literacy on the current AI frontier, including its capabilities, limitations, and implications for national security.”
The memorandum also includes safeguards intended to ensure AI systems remain controllable and consistent with U.S. law. It states that AI should not be used to “censor free speech, embed ideological bias, or conduct unauthorized surveillance of Americans,” and it reinforces that military and intelligence leaders remain responsible for decisions made with AI assistance. The directive orders updates to military AI policies, creation of new security standards, expanded AI testing and validation, recruitment of AI talent, workforce training, and development of secure computing facilities and data-sharing systems.
June 4th, 2026
Proclamation - GRANTING PARDON TO STEPHEN E. BUYER
This is a proclamation announcing President Trump’s pardon of Stephen Buyer. Buyer, a former GOP member of Congress, was convicted in 2023 of insider trading to the tune of $350,000 and sentenced to 22 months in prison; he was released in 2025.
A pardon does not remove a conviction from a defendants record, but they may get back various rights like voting and owning firearms. A good deal of this depends on where the person resides, as most (but not all) of the restrictions placed on felons come from state laws rather than the federal government.
June 3rd, 2026
Executive Order - STRENGTHENING CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
This executive order aims to tighten and modernize U.S. customs enforcement by cracking down on loopholes that allow importers to evade duties, conceal ownership, misclassify goods, or bypass other trade laws. It imposes stricter requirements on importers (especially foreign companies) by increasing bonding requirements, demanding more disclosure about ownership and supply chains, expanding vetting and compliance standards, and giving Customs and Border Protection greater authority to audit, penalize, seize, and dispose of noncompliant shipments. The order also prioritizes enforcement against forced labor, undervaluation schemes, and illicit goods, while directing agencies to improve transparency and recommend additional legislation.
In basic terms, the order is trying to move customs enforcement away from a system that assumes compliance and punishes violations after the fact to one that requires foreign companies to prove up front that they are legitimate and compliant. The biggest impact will likely fall on low-cost overseas e-commerce and importers that have benefited from relatively light enforcement.
Executive Order - IMPLEMENTING SCHEDULE POLICY/CAREER IN THE EXCEPTED SERVICE
This executive order expands and implements the administration’s “Schedule Policy/Career” system, which moves certain career federal employees in policy-related roles out of the traditional civil service protections and into a new category that can be removed more easily for poor performance or misconduct. It argues that senior policy-influencing officials should be more accountable to elected leadership and that current procedures make dismissing ineffective employees “excessively difficult.” It directs agencies to transfer designated positions into this new schedule, exempts them from many adverse action protections, and creates bonus and award programs to reward high performers.
In practical terms, the order makes it easier for future administrations to hire, manage, and fire career employees in policy-shaping roles while retaining merit-based hiring requirements.
June 2, 2026
Executive Order - PROMOTING ADVANCED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE INNOVATION AND SECURITY
This executive order seeks to strengthen cybersecurity while maintaining a light regulatory approach to AI development. It directs federal agencies to expand access to AI-enabled cybersecurity tools and work closely with private industry to identify and patch software vulnerabilities. It establishes a voluntary framework for cooperation with developers of advanced “frontier” AI models, allowing the government limited early access to assess cyber capabilities without imposing licensing or preapproval requirements. It also expands cybersecurity hiring programs and prioritizes prosecution of criminals who use AI to conduct hacking or related offenses.
In short, the order aims to use AI to improve cybersecurity and protect critical infrastructure while preserving rapid innovation and avoiding mandatory regulation of AI development.
Proclamation - FURTHER ADJUSTING THE TARIFF REGIMES FOR IMPORTS OF ALUMINUM, STEEL, AND COPPER INTO THE UNITED STATES
This proclamation modifies existing steel, aluminum, and copper tariffs by extending lower temporary tariff rates to agricultural equipment, certain residential HVAC products, and some industrial machinery, while adding additional products to tariff coverage and tightening rules for what qualifies as predominantly American-made metal. The changes are intended to support domestic industries that rely on these products while continuing to protect U.S. metal producers and address national security concerns tied to foreign imports.
The Actions of Congress
The Senate
Notable Measures Considered
S.2 - Secure America Act
Per the Congressional Research Service, “[t]his bill provides funding to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) through FY2029 for immigration enforcement and related activities.”
This bill was PASSED on June 5, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 52 YEAS to 47 NAYS, with 1 not voting.
There were over 350 amendments recommended for this reconciliation bill, most of which were rejected. Here are some of the most notable:
Schiff Amdt. No. 5740; To provide for limitations on judgments, awards, and compromise settlements under section 1304 of title 31, United States Code (related to the now-abandoned “anti-weaponization fund”).
REJECTED on June 5, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 51 YEAS to 48 NAYS, with 1 not voting.
Van Hollen Amdt. No. 5632; To prohibit the use of funds to provide payments to certain individuals (also relating to Trump’s now-abandoned “anti-weaponization fund”)
REJECTED on June 5, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 53 YEAS to 46 NAYS, with 1 not voting.
Cortez Masto Amdt. No. 5463; To appropriate amounts for local law enforcement hiring programs.
REJECTED on June 5, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 45 YEAS to 53 NAYS, with Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) voting Present and 1 not voting.
Cassidy Amdt. No. 5812; To provide compensation to law enforcement officers who defended the United States Capitol during the events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, and for other purposes.
REJECTED on June 5, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 52 YEAS to 47 NAYS, with 1 not voting. It was also ruled “out of order” by the Senate chair possibly at the direction of the Senate Parliamentarian.
Coons Amdt. No. 5457; To prohibit the Department of Justice from using taxpayer funds to make settlement payments to individuals convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers on January 6, 2021. (another anti-slush fund amendment)
REJECTED on June 5, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 54 YEAS to 45 NAYS, with 1 not voting.
Padilla Amdt. No. 5808; To make appropriations for transparency and accountability.
REJECTED on June 5, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 46 YEAS to 53 NAYS, with 1 not voting.
Gallego Amdt. No. 5813; To make funds available for the timely adjudication of DACA renewal applications.
REJECTED on June 5, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 47 YEAS to 52 NAYS, with 1 not voting.
Hirono Amdt. No. 5506; To transfer amounts for youth mentoring programs of the Department of Justice.
REJECTED on June 5, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 46 YEAS to 53 NAYS, with 1 not voting.
Lee Amdt. No. 5804; To ensure only citizens are registered to vote in elections for Federal office, and to require voters to provide photo identification.
REJECTED on June 5, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 50 YEAS to 49 NAYS, with 1 not voting. This amendment was ruled “out of order” by the chair as well.
There were many different versions of the above amendments submitted by various Senators, most of which were DOA and purely symbolic in nature.
Nomination Confirmations
On the nomination confirmation of Jeffrey M. Kuhlman, of Kansas, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Kansas
CONFIRMED on June 2, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 52 YEAS to 46 NAYS.
On the nomination confirmation of Kathleen S. Lane, of Montana, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Montana
CONFIRMED on June 2, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 52 YEAS to 46 NAYS.
The House of Representatives
Notable Measures Considered
H.R.2913 - Ukraine Support Act
This bill addresses the war in Ukraine by providing additional support to Ukraine and certain Eastern European countries while imposing new penalties on Russia. If signed into law, it would establish a reconstruction fund for Ukraine, extend military and intelligence assistance, and strengthen support for the defense capabilities of Baltic nations. The bill also requires the President to periodically assess Russia’s conduct and, if Russia is found to be continuing its aggression or violating a peace agreement, impose a range of sanctions on Russian officials, energy and financial firms, and raise tariffs on Russian imports to at least 500 percent.
This bill was PASSED on June 4, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 226 YEAS to 195 NAYS, with 9 not voting. 18 Republicans voted with Democrats for passage.
H.R.8646 - Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2027
The bill provides fiscal year 2027 appropriations for the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and several related agencies. It funds a wide range of USDA activities, including agricultural research, statistics, marketing, food safety, animal and plant health programs, and farm production and conservation efforts through agencies such as the Farm Service Agency, Risk Management Agency, and Natural Resources Conservation Service. The measure also provides funding for the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and Commodity Credit Corporation, as well as rural development programs covering housing, business cooperatives, and utilities. Nutrition assistance programs, including Child Nutrition Programs, WIC, SNAP, and commodity assistance programs, receive funding, along with international food aid initiatives administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service.
In addition to all of this, the bill appropriates funds for the FDA, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and Farm Credit Administration, while establishing various requirements and restrictions on the use of appropriated funds. The legislation also contains policy provisions related to the regulation of animal food, liability protections for donations of pet-related products, and payments for construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit.
This bill was PASSED on June 4, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 213 YEAS to 210 NAYS, with 7 not voting.
H.Con.Res.84 - Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from Lebanon.
If passed, this resolution would have directed the removal of U.S. forces from Lebanon. Since there is currently no combat deployment of U.S. forces in Lebanon at this time, supporters sought to use it preemptively to prevent future involvement in Israel’s invasion of the country.
The resolution was REJECTED on June 4, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 92 YEAS to 324 NAYS, with 2 voting present and 12 not voting.
H.Con.Res.86 - Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.
Per the Congressional Research Service, “[t]his concurrent resolution directs the President to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities against Iran unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or a congressional authorization for use of military force against Iran.”
It was PASSED on June 3, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 215 YEAS to 208 NAYS, with 7 not voting.
H.R.7726 - Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026
Per the CRS, “[t]his bill subjects states to additional sanctions for improperly using funds under the Child Care and Development Block Grant program. The program provides grants to states to support child care programs for low-income working families.”
It was PASSED on June 3, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 217 YEAS to 207 NAYS, with 6 not voting.
H.R.2860 - Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative Reauthorization Act of 2025
This bill revises and reauthorizes for seven years the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative and its Northwest Straits Advisory Commission.
It was PASSED on June 3, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 374 YEAS to 49 NAYS, with 7 not voting.
S.254 - ARTIST Act
This bill prohibits states from imposing bans on marine mammal products produced by Alaska Natives.
It was PASSED on June 3, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 404 YEAS to 14 NAYS.
H.R.7618 - American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act of 2026
Per the CRS, “[t]his bill extends through FY2036 three National Park Service (NPS) grant programs that preserve U.S. battlefields and requires the NPS to study additional sites for potential preservation.”
It was PASSED on June 3, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 404 YEAS to 13 NAYS.
The Supreme Court of the United States
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. ET AL. v. AMARIN PHARMA, INC., ET AL.
In this case, the Court unanimously sided with generic-drug manufacturer Hikma in a dispute over so-called “skinny labels” and induced patent infringement.
Drug company Amarin developed Vascepa, a medicine containing icosapent ethyl, which the FDA first approved for severe hypertriglyceridemia and later for a broader cardiovascular-risk indication; Amarin held method-of-use patents on the latter use. Hikma sought approval to sell a generic version with a label carved down to the unpatented indication (i.e. a skinny label to avoid patent infringement), but Amarin sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, arguing that Hikma’s label, patient leaflet, website, and press releases collectively encouraged doctors to prescribe the generic for Amarin’s still-patented cardiovascular use. The District Court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, finding it plausible that physicians could read Hikma’s statements as encouragement to infringe.
On June 4, 2026, Justice Jackson, writing for a unanimous Court, reversed the Federal Circuit and held that Amarin had not plausibly alleged the required “active steps” to induce infringement; the Court said the key question was not whether doctors could interpret the materials as encouraging infringement, but whether Hikma itself plausibly took affirmative steps to bring that infringement about. The Court pointed out that many of Hikma’s statements were better explained by FDA-labeling requirements or ordinary industry practice, and that omissions or vague sales statements could not carry the inducement claim over the pleading threshold.
SRIPETCH v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Here we have another case in which the Court ruled unanimously, this time holding that the Securities and Exchange Commission does not have to prove investors suffered financial losses before it may seek disgorgement (or return) of a wrongdoer’s profits.
Ongkaruck Sripetch was accused of participating in fraudulent schemes involving at least 20 penny-stock companies, including pump-and-dump conduct, and the SEC brought a civil enforcement action against him in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Sripetch consented to judgment and agreed that disgorgement could be ordered, but objected when the SEC sought more than $4.1 million, arguing under Liu v. SEC (2020) that disgorgement must be “for victims” and therefore required proof of pecuniary, or monetary, loss. The District Court accepted the SEC’s alternative argument that such loss had been shown and did not decide whether the showing was legally required; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit went further and held that pecuniary loss was not required at all.
On June 4, the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit, explaining that traditional equity has long allowed courts to strip wrongdoers of unjust gains even when the victim cannot show a corresponding financial loss. The Court treated the invasion of legally protected investor interests, rather than proof of dollars lost, as sufficient for this form of disgorgement.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL. v. AT&T, INC. (as well as Verizon)
In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s administrative forfeiture process against a Seventh Amendment challenge from AT&T and Verizon.
Starting around 2018, the FCC began investigating AT&T and Verizon over their handling of customer location data and, based on their results, assessed penalties of roughly $57 million against AT&T and $47 million against Verizon. The carriers paid and then sought review, arguing that the FCC could not impose such penalties without a jury trial.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with AT&T and vacated the FCC’s order, reasoning that the agency had already found facts, interpreted law, adjudged guilt, and imposed punishment without a jury. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, however, rejected Verizon’s challenge, holding that an FCC forfeiture order does not itself compel payment because the Department of Justice must bring a collection action under 47 U.S.C. §504 before the penalty can be enforced. This situation is called a “split circuit,” in which two Circuit Courts rule differently on a similar issue.
On June 4, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for an 8–1 Court, resolved the split in favor of the FCC, reversing the Fifth Circuit and affirming the Second Circuit. The Court held that FCC forfeiture orders do not finally determine legal rights or obligations because the agency cannot execute on them, impose penalties for nonpayment, or conclusively establish facts; before the government can collect, it must proceed in a de novo civil action where a jury can decide the facts.
You’re probably asking yourself, “wait, didn’t they already pay before any kind of trial happened? Why would the Court write that a jury has to review the facts before settlements can be collected?”
Yes, AT&T and Verizon did pay, but since they paid soon after the original FCC investigation and didn’t refuse pending further litigation, the Court saw this as “voluntary payment” that did not need judicial review. In other words, if the companies would have challenged their judgements rather than immediately paying them, they would have been well within their rights to have a jury examine the facts before paying.
Justice Thomas dissented alone, arguing that a de novo jury trial should have happened before allowing the defendants to pay anything at all, and that this methodology was in itself disingenuous.
GARY RICHARD WHITTON v. RICKY D. DIXON, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Here, the Court summarily vacated an Eleventh Circuit habeas ruling in a Florida death-penalty case because the court of appeals relied on evidence the jury never heard.
In 1994, Gary Richard Whitton was convicted in Florida state court of murder and sentenced to death; one prosecution witness, jailhouse informant Jake Ozio, testified that Whitton had confessed to the murder while behind bars. While the veracity of this claim was never verified, other claims of Ozio’s, such as him having no criminal record, were proven to be false, and Whitton appealed his conviction based on Ozio’s unreliability.
After losing on direct appeal and in state post conviction proceedings, Whitton filed a federal habeas petition in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, arguing that the prosecution’s use of false testimony violated Giglio v. United States (1972) and had a substantial influence on the verdict. The District Court denied relief, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, but in doing so considered later DNA testing from Whitton’s boots that had not been presented to the jury and did not exist at the time of trial.
On June 1, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to Whitton, vacated the Eleventh Circuit, and remanded for further review, holding that the appeals court should not have considered post-trial DNA evidence when evaluating whether Ozio’s testimony affected the jury’s verdict; because the later DNA evidence could not have influenced the actual jury, it had no place in the Brecht/Giglio harmlessness analysis. The Court left open whether the Florida Supreme Court’s earlier assessment of the trial evidence was reasonable and whether Whitton had exhausted the claim.
Justice Thomas dissented, joined mostly by Justice Alito, making the public vote line effectively 7–2 on the judgment. Thomas argued that the Court was vacating a long Eleventh Circuit opinion over what he saw as a minor and non-dispositive reference to later DNA evidence. He also stressed exhaustion problems, saying Whitton had not properly presented the specific Giglio claim about Ozio’s criminal-history testimony in state court, and that the Eleventh Circuit had other grounds to deny relief.
WES ALLEN, ALABAMA SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL. v. EVAN MILLIGAN, ET AL.
In this case, the Court granted Alabama officials’ emergency request to stay a new injunction blocking the State’s 2023 congressional map. It is the latest in a series of high profile redistricting cases happening before November’s midterms.
The case is the latest turn in the long-running Alabama redistricting litigation under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In 2022, a three-judge panel for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama held that Alabama’s congressional map unlawfully diluted Black voting strength because it contained only one majority-Black district and lacked a second Black-opportunity district; this dispute previously reached the Supreme Court in Allen v. Milligan (2023) and later returned after the Court’s new decision in Louisiana v. Callais (2026), which changed the framework for vote-dilution claims.
After Callais, the Supreme Court vacated prior injunctions against Alabama’s 2023 map, but the Alabama District Court soon entered another injunction on similar grounds, again preventing use of that map.
On June 2, the Supreme Court stayed the District Court’s May 26, 2026 injunction, concluding at the preliminary stage that Alabama was likely to succeed because the lower court had not properly applied the new standard set in Callais. The Court faulted the District Court for treating Alabama’s disagreement with an earlier remedial order as evidence of discriminatory intent, for accepting alternative maps that did not satisfy Alabama’s permissible districting goals “just as well,” and for failing to account for Callais’s instruction on race, party affiliation, and racially polarized voting.
Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. She framed the majority’s order as choosing a chaotic, never-before-used congressional map over a remedial map that had already governed Alabama’s 2024 election and, in her view, protected Black voters’ rights. The dissent argued that Alabama had repeatedly defied court orders, that the District Court had built a substantial record after an 11-day trial, and that the stay would force election officials to reassign hundreds of thousands of voters on an extremely compressed timeline. Sotomayor also accused the majority of misusing the Purcell principle by allowing disruption rather than preventing it.
Thank you
Welcome back