Sunday Issues-June 29, 2025

A good week for the king, but . . . .

White House image, modified by author

Our king, Donald Trump, had a good week. On Friday, the Supreme Court issued its decision on nationwide injunctions, removing an obstacle to the king ruling the country through Executive Actions. Early this morning, the U.S. Senate voted to begin debate on the king’s “Big, Beautiful Bill,” which the king has now added “Great.” I am referring to the bill as a result as the “GBBB.”

As expected, threats and other pressure from the king prompted a sufficient number of Senate Republicans to vote “correctly” for the bill to take another step forward. The king wants to sign it before July 4th.

Here is one post from the demonstrably excited king regarding the bill:

Two Senate Republicans voted with the Democrats against the GBBB as it moved towards final passage in the Senate. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) were immediately condemned by the king, who ridiculed them and promised to engineer an end to their political careers.

The king wrote this about Senator Tillis:

Although the king has good reason to celebrate, the king’s old jester, Elon Musk, who had wisely lain low after parting company with Trump a few weeks ago, raised his head again. Musk again blasted the GBBB:

As I wrote this this morning, I had not seen the king’s response, but I expect one. Something really nasty.

Do I expect the GBBB to be on the king’s desk by July 4? I don’t think so, but I’m not entirely sure.

I expect that the bill, a somewhat watered-down version of the bill thanks to the Senate parliamentarian, who removed provisions inconsistent with Senate rules, will be signed into law by the king before the end of July.

About that nationwide injunctions decision.

The Supreme Court’s decision in what might be called the “nationwide injunctions decision” is 119 pages long. I haven’t read it through yet, and, more importantly, will be interested in what Constitutional Law experts say after they read it. My preliminary read, however, is that the decision is reasonable.

Nationwide injunctions (also called universal injunctions) are welcome obstacles to a king bypassing Congress and other legitimate authorities to rule with impunity. But should a single Federal District Court (there are 677 authorized District Court judgeships) be able to enjoin implementation of an Executive Order nationwide? I don’t think so.

Here is a quote from the Court’s majority decision:

By the end of the Biden administration, we had reached “a state of affairs where almost every major presidential act [was] immediately frozen by a federal district court.” W. Baude & S. Bray, Comment, Proper Parties, Proper Relief, 137 Harv. L. Rev. 153, 174 (2023). The trend has continued: During the first 100 days of the second Trump administration, district courts issued approximately 25 universal injunctions.

I am deeply troubled by the king’s abuse of Executive Orders, but regular issuance of nationwide injunctions by District Courts is not the solution. Remember that Aileen Cannon, who may have a Supreme Court nomination in her future, is a Federal District Court judge.

Nationwide injunctions are a two-edged sword.

Read the full decision and dissents here.

Justice for Bibi

What better way for the king to remind his subjects that his multiple indictments for insurrection and other crimes were a “Witch Hunt?” The answer is to express outrage against the continued Israeli prosecution of Benjamin Netanyahu for corruption.

The king wrote this yesterday, June 28:

I have a suggestion for the king: Why not just issue an Executive Order dismissing the case? Bibi has a big job to do, right?

Thank you.

That’s it for this morning. Thank you for reading.

Also, please note that Dean’s Issues & Insights will be taking a summer break while I am on travel between July 14 and 28. There may be an exception or two, but no promises.