The Court Rightly Ruled on Nationwide Injunctions

by Rod Williams, June27, 2025- I am as about as never-Trumper as a lifelong Republican can be and as I have watched the Trump administration push the limits of Constitutional authority, I have been pleased to see the courts check Trump's actions. 

To me, it is clear that the 14th Amendment establishes birthright citizenship. In 1898 in the case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court confirmed that the 14th Amendment did so. So, when Trump tried to abolish birthright citizenship by executive order, I was glad his action was stopped by a federal judge.

The above being said, however, I nevertheless, am pleased with yesterday's Supreme Court ruling in Trump's favor. The Supreme Court ruled that federal district judges have no inherent authority to issue nationwide injunctions. The case before the Court was Trump v. CASA, Inc. 

In January President Trump issued an Executive Order that denied birthright citizenship to people born in the United States if their mothers were unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States and if their fathers were not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Advocacy groups files suits with various federal district courts and several courts issued nationwide preliminary injunctions preventing the government from enforcing the Executive Order anywhere in the country during litigation.

While I am pleased the Courts ruled the way I wanted them to rule in that case, I do not believe a single Federal District judge should have the authority to make a ruling that effects the whole nation. With 94 federal district courts, plaintiffs can judge shop and find a judge who will rule in their favor. With 94 different federal courts there are some ultra-liberal courts and some ultra-conservative courts.  

It is not just Trump critics who have judge shopped and stopped executive action nationwide.  Late in Biden's term he attempted to "forgive" student loans. The Supreme Court had already ruled that an earlier attempt to forgive student loans was illegal. Biden tried to achieve the same thing through other means and a U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia Brunswick Division issued a temporary restraining order against the Education Department from implementing a student loan debt relief plan.  I am pleased with that outcome but do not think that is the way policy should be made. A federal judge in southern rural Georgia should not make policy for the whole nation.

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, some pro-life doctors brought a suite in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and got a nationwide injunction against the FDA's approval of the abortion drug mifepristone. I am okay with that policy outcome, but it should have been an issued debated and decided by the legislative branch, not the decision of one judge in Texas. 

Sometimes it is hard to separate one's pleasure with the outcome of an event and concern about how the event was achieved. It is easy to have the mindset that the ends justify the means. One may, as an example, approve of increased deportations, and stifle concerned about the violation of due process. Generally, I am as concerned, maybe more concerned, with the process than I am the outcome. We have all heard the saying, "what goes around, comes around." I don't buy that as a metaphysical maxim but in politics however, if one side bends a rule or uses an illegal tactic to get what it wants, then rest assured when political fortunes are reversed, the other side will do it.  If we stretch the structure of our democracy too often and too much, it may not hold.

Also, I don't think Donald Trump nor any other strong president, is not the only threat to a functioning democracy and our liberties. An unchecked electorate responding to the passion of the moment can run roughshod over minority interest and individual liberties. So can the legislative or the judicial branch. Just as we should be concerned with an imperial presidency, we should be concerned with an imperial judiciary. Separation of power, balance of power, and the constitutional framework makes our republic function. We should safeguard those arrangements and reject overreach even when we like the particular outcome.

As regards the Trump v. CASA, Inc decision, the court did not address the underlying issue of birthright citizenship. We can expect that issue to be litigated at a later time. For those who think this ruling by the court leaves Trump unchecked, plaintiffs still have the tool of class action lawsuits. Also, the CASA ruling leaves room for judges to order relief akin to a nationwide injunction when a state sues the federal government. Also, I suspect that if the Courts were less activist, the legislature would reclaim some of the authority that should be theirs. Many of the decisions decided by Courts should rightly be decided by the legislative branch instead of decided by one unelected judge. I suspect many elected representatives are cowardly because they are counting on the courts to do the job they should do. 

For more on this topic, see the following:

• A Welcome Start on Nationwide Injunctions | National Review
• Harvard Law Review: District Court Reform: Nationwide Injunctions
• The Federalist Society: Proposed Legislative Limits on Nationwide Injunctions
• Politico: Supreme Court leaves open the question of nationwide injunctions when states sue
• Supreme Court: 24A884 Trump v. CASA, Inc. (06/27/2025)
• The White House: “A BIG WIN”: Supreme Court Ends Excessive Nationwide Injunctions

Top Stories

Tennessee congressman Andy Ogles says deport NYC mayoral candidate Mamdani

By Christina Lengyel, The Center Square, June 27, 2025- In a move that is being celebrated in
right-wing social media circles and panned as racist by some on the left, Tennessee Congressman Rep. Andy Ogles has petitioned the Attorney General’s office to denaturalize and deport New York City mayoral candidate, Zohran Mamdani.

Mamdani, a Democrat, is a Shia Muslim of Indian descent and was born in Uganda. He immigrated to the United States with his parents at the age of seven and was naturalized in 2018.

In his letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Ogles claims Mamdani misrepresented himself on his citizenship paperwork.

Ogles points to a musical reference Mamdani made to freeing the Holy Land Five, a group of organizers who were prosecuted after the Holy Land Foundation was deemed a terrorist organization by the U.S. government for its support of the Palestinian cause. Their 2008 convictions raised questions amongst human rights groups and remains a controversial rallying point for critics of Israel and the U.S. to this day.

“If an individual publicly glorifies a group convicted of financing terrorism, it is entirely appropriate for federal authorities to inquire whether that individual engaged in non-public forms of support—such as organizational affiliation, fundraising or advocacy—that would have required disclosure on form N-400 or during a naturalization interview,” Ogles said.

The congressman maintains that the song lyric coupled with the fact that Mamdani “refused opportunities to reject the pro-terrorist rallying cry to ‘globalize the intifada’" create a troubling pattern that goes beyond First Amendment rights.

“Intifada” is an Arabic word meaning “to shudder” used by supporters of Palestine to encourage the “shaking off” of the Israeli regime. It has been used frequently to describe uprisings throughout Southwest Asia and North Africa during the 20th and 21st centuries.

Ogles has taken to posting about Mamdani, referring to him as “little Mohammad,” echoing derogatory speech frequently used against Arab-Americans and other Muslim Americans.

The congressman has also painted Mamdani as an antisemite. Mamdani, frequently faced with the accusation, has publicly expressed support and concern for Jews on numerous occasions. Politically, he has received significant support from within the Jewish community. 

Mamdani’s views on Israel and Palestine have played an outsize role in the race, while the candidate tried to keep his campaign focused on economic issues. Conflation of criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism has been a major point of contention nationally since the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attacks.

While some pro-Palestinians in the U.S. support the occupied state’s right to armed resistance as allowed through Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, there is no clear consensus among Americans on the matter.

The U.S. movement has predominantly emphasized non-violence and has been led largely by college students. Nevertheless, the vicious attacks seen in Colorado, Washington D.C., and Pennsylvania in the name of Palestine have rocked the Jewish community and added tension to the divide between Americans on the issue.

Mamdani’s father is distinguished professor Mahmood Mamdani. His mother is filmmaker Mira Nair.

Rod's Comment: Andy Ogles is a despicable person and a disgrace. 

Top Stories

Register of Deeds Karen Johnson Selected to Attend Prestigious Harvard Kennedy School Executive Program

Metro Nashville Press Release, June 26, 2025 - Nashville Davidson County Register of Deeds Karen
Johnson has been selected to participate in the Senior Executives in State and Local Government program at the Harvard Kennedy School during the month of July.

The program, held on the Harvard Kennedy School campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, brings together over 70 leaders from across the United States and around the world for three weeks of intensive learning, leadership development, and peer exchange. Participants represent a diverse mix of mayors, city managers, state agency directors, county commissioners, law enforcement officials, and other senior leaders in public service.

"I'm honored to join this extraordinary cohort of public servants, and I look forward to a shared experience with this unique opportunity," said Johnson. "I look forward to learning from Harvard faculty and from the experiences of fellow participants as we work together to strengthen our leadership skills and find new ways to serve our communities more effectively."

Led by renowned faculty from the Harvard Kennedy School, the program focuses on real-world problem solving, crisis management, negotiation, and leading in times of change. It offers a unique opportunity for senior officials to step away from day-to-day responsibilities and reflect, learn, and return to their organizations with renewed insight and energy.

For more information about the program, visit the Harvard Kennedy School website.

Rod's Comment: Congratulations, Karen. 

Top Stories

Tennessee Tourism Breaks Record Spending for Fourth Consecutive Year with $31.7B in 2024

Tennessee Dept. of Tourism press release, June 27, 2025- Tennessee’s tourism industry set a new record in 2024, generating $31.7 billion in direct visitor spending and welcoming 147 million visits, according to newly released data from Tourism Economics and the Tennessee Department of Tourist Development.

Tourism is a powerful economic driver across all 95 counties, generating $3.3 billion in state and local tax revenue – saving each Tennessee household $1,170 annually on average.

“Tennessee’s tourism momentum is built to last, creating jobs, fueling small businesses, delivering real returns on public investment and generating substantial tax revenues that directly benefit Tennesseans,” said Gov. Bill Lee. “I'm proud of the investments we've made to drive intentional growth, and welcome visitors from around the world to experience Tennessee's urban cities and small towns from Memphis to Mountain City.”

“I’m so grateful to our amazing tourism and hospitality industry for these remarkable results,” said Mark Ezell, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Tourist Development. “The Tennessee Tourism team has been able to leverage bigger tourism budgets to help grow visitor spending over 35% in these last six years. We are leading the nation as one of just a few states that are aggressively growing tax revenue from non-Tennessee residents to benefit all seven million Tennesseans.”

By the Numbers: 2024 Economic Impact of Travel in Tennessee

• Record $31.7 billion in direct visitor spending, a 3.3% year-over-year increase
• 35.5% growth since 2018, more than double the national average of 16.7%
• Visitors spent $87 million per day in 2024
• $3.3 billion in state and local tax revenue in 2024, saving residents $1,170 in taxes each year

International Travel Surged in 2024

• 12.0% year-over-year increase in international visitor spending
• Each international visitor spent $1,278 on average - nearly six times more than a domestic visitor
• Note: These figures do not reflect the 2025 launch of new direct flights from Iceland and Ireland, which open new doors for European visitation

The data underscores the resilience of Tennessee’s tourism industry, which sustained growth despite a challenging year with major weather events, including Hurricane Helene.

In 2024, Tennessee awarded more tourism funding than ever before - investing $1.5 million in marketing grants, $2 million in Tourism Enhancement Grants and $13.75 million in ARPA funds. These investments support marketing and destination development at both the state and local level, help drive year-round visitation in all 95 counties and open new opportunities for rural communities to grow their tourism economies.

With new air service between Memphis and Knoxville; expanded routes into Nashville, Chattanooga and several regional airports; and luxury coach options like Vonlane and Gray Line, Tennessee is primed to attract even more visitors in 2025, with milestones like B.B. King’s 100th birthday in Memphis, Grand Ole Opry’s 100th anniversary in Nashville and Dollywood’s 40th anniversary. Events like MLB Speedway Classic at Bristol and IBMA in Chattanooga are also aimed to draw visitors. Programs like the upcoming MICHELIN Guide to the American South will continue to elevate Tennessee’s culinary brand.

The full 2024 Economic Impact on Travel Report and direct visitor spending data for all 95 counties will be released in September. The statewide report, including methodology, can be found here. All data is sourced from the Tennessee Department of Tourist Development and Tourism Economics, with national benchmarks provided by U.S. Travel Association.

Top Stories

U.S. Supreme Court rules for parents on LGBTQ storybooks

link

 By Esther Wickham, The Center Square, June 27, 2025 - The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision Friday, sided with parents in opting-out their children from school curriculum with LGBTQ storybooks. 

In the case Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court recognized parents have a constitutional right to opt their children out of, for religious reasons, content such as storybooks that push LGBTQ ideology.

"We have long recognized the rights of parents to direct 'the religious upbringing' of the children," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court's opinion. "And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred.

"Given the novelty of its ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ curriculum and no opt-out policy, if any party is pressing a progressive child rearing process in this litigation, clearly it is the [School] Board,” Kavanaugh said. “Such an unprecedented curriculum cannot ‘overbalance’ the parents’ ‘legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion.’”

link

This issue arose in 2022 when Montgomery County, the largest school district in Maryland and one of the most religiously diverse counties in the country, reversed its policy on letting parents opt-out their children from LGBTQ-related lessons.

The seven books originally purchased for the 2022-23 school year were "Born Ready," "Intersection Allies," "Love, Violet," "My Rainbow," "Prince & Knight," "Pride Puppy!" and "Uncle Bobby’s Wedding" – all with LGBTQ characters and themes.

The district’s associate superintendent for curriculum, Niki Hazel, explained the district decided to buy those books due to previous storybooks not fully representing all diverse families in their school district.

“The books used in its existing ELA curriculum were not representative of many students and families in Montgomery County because they did not include LGBTQ characters,” Hazel said in a U.S. Supreme Court declaration.

link

Following parents' frustration with reversing this opt-out policy, the Montgomery County Board of Education claimed these opt-outs were too difficult to manage and that it was too hard to find alternative activities for the excused students. 

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said this decision will isolate students from a diverse education. 

“Today’s ruling threatens the very essence of public education ... That decision guts our free-exercise precedent and 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,” said Sotomayor. “The reverberations of the Court’s error will be felt, I fear, for generations. Unable to condone that grave misjudgment, I dissent.” 

Eric Baxter, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the group representing the parents who were the plaintiffs in the case, said Friday's decision restored common sense in America. 

“This is a historic victory for parental rights in Maryland and across America. Kids shouldn’t be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents’ permission,” Baxter said. “Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents — not government —have the final say in how their children are raised.” 

Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president and legal fellow at Defending Education, said the court's decision should have been unanimous.

“In what should have been a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court in Mahmoud v. Taylor upheld by a 6-3 vote the rights of religious parents to opt their children out of LGBTQ themed curriculum," Perry said in a statement to The Center Square. "In a straightforward application of its earlier decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Court wrote that it had long recognized the rights of parents to direct 'the religious upbringing' of their children, and that policies that interfere with the religious development of children violate the Constitution. Storybooks like those at issue in Mahmoud convey normative messages on sex and gender, and those messages can and often do conflict with the beliefs of parents and their children.”

Maryland parents Friday praised the court’s decision.

“The Supreme Court sent a powerful message today: Parents do not take a back seat to anyone when it comes to raising their kids. I am deeply grateful to have been part of this historic triumph for parental rights nationwide," said Grace Morrison, one of the Catholic plaintiffs. 

Rod's Comment: Hallelujah!

Top Stories

Council Members Sue Over TN Sanctuary City Restrictions

Zulfat Suara

Delishia Porterfield

Edited by Megan Podsiedlik, The Pamphleteer, June 25, 2025- Seven council members are suing over a Tennessee State Law established during this year’s special session that introduces harsher punishments for local policymakers who try to establish sanctuary cities. 

At-large council members Delishia Porterfield and Zulfat Suara, along with district council
members Clay Capp (District-6), Brenda Gadd (District-24), Sandra Sepulveda (District-30), Terry Vo (District 17), and Ginny Welsch (District 16) are listed as plaintiffs on the suit.

In 2019, a state law went into effect that prohibits state and local governmental entities and officials from adopting sanctuary policies. The General Assembly expanded on the law this February and established criminal penalties that go into effect on July 1. Any official convicted of proposing sanctuary policies will also be removed from office.

Terry Vo

Ginny Welsch

“This snapshot of the political climate demonstrates the State’s aggressive anti-
immigrant stance and the federal government’s equally aggressive efforts to attack any local governmental entities or officials that stand in the way of their immigration enforcement goals,” reads the complaint. “Local officials, therefore, face a profound and concrete likelihood of criminal prosecution under the Act.”

The council members are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee and claim the law violates First Amendment rights of locally elected officials. The ACLU has been involved in numerous lawsuits taken up against the state. Notably, they challenged Tennessee’s law that restricts gender-transition interventions for minors. The case was taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately upheld the state's authority to protect kids from life‑altering medical practices in an opinion that came down last week.

During a press conference last Wednesday, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti acknowledged ACLU’s involvement in the courtroom battle when explaining the abundance of resources deployed to try to impose policy preferences through lawfare.

Rod's Comment: 

I support the State's ban on sanctuary cities in Tennessee.  Policies that prevent local law enforcement from sharing information about individuals with criminal records with federal immigration authorities can lead to the release of individuals with criminal histories back into the community. Also, it undermines the rule of law in general.  

Should Nashville pass sanctuary policies they would be invalid because of the State ban. That should be sufficient. With the State law in place prohibiting a city from adopting sanctuary policy, should a member of the Metro Council propose such policies, I am certain the Council's legal advisors would inform the Council member that what they were proposing was contrary to state law and advice the member not to introduce it. Should the member introduce it anyway, I would assume the legal analysis would advise the body that the proposed ordinance was contrary to state law, and that should the body adopt the ordinance it would be of no effect. Should the body pass the ordinance anyway, I assume the Nashville mayor would veto it. Should the Council override the veto, the Council would have engaged in some theater and passed an ordinance that would be of no effect. That should be all the safeguards we need to ensure Nashville does not become a sanctuary city. 

I think the recent law making it a crime to propose sanctuary policies was unnecessary and was a kiss-ass, suck-up attempt to show felty to Donald Trump. There are lots of things Metro Council cannot do, that I am sure some of the more liberal members of the Council would like to do. Metro Nashville cannot legalize abortion. Metro Nashville cannot pass so called "inclusionary zoning" forcing developers to build affordable housing. Metro cannot impose wage and price controls. Metro can't impose rent control. Metro cannot pass its own minimum wage law. Metro cannot legalize marijuana. In none of these cases is it a crime to propose an ordinance to accomplish these things. 

Having stated the above however, I think it is foolish to sue the state over the law criminalizing proposing sanctuary policies. Should the lawsuit prevail, what would have been accomplished? A member could then introduce an ordinance that should it pass would have no effect. That is the primary reason I oppose the lawsuit. Secondly, I would not want to be associated with these particular Council Members or the ACLU. 

Top Stories

Social Security's Financial Status is Worse than You think

 Truth in Accounting, June 20, 2025 -The recent analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget regarding the 2025 Medicare Trustees’ Report highlights the looming challenges with Medicare and Social Security, but it only scratches the surface of the deeper fiscal issues our country faces. To understand the full financial reality, we must go beyond trust fund “solvency” and examine the actual commitments the federal government has made—and continues to make—without fully accounting for them.

As the Congressional Budget Office has noted:

In the public debate, ‘solvency’ means keeping the trust funds from exhausting their balances and ensuring the ability of the funds to finance promised benefits. Defined that way, however, trust fund solvency is not a meaningful measure of the government’s ability to meet its future obligations.

In other words, solvency in this context is more of a political or legal benchmark than an actual measure of financial health.

The more alarming reality is how much these programs consume of the federal budget. In 2008, spending on Social Security and Health and Human Services (including Medicare) made up 38% of the federal budget. In 2024, that share has grown to 44%, crowding out other priorities and worsening the deficit.

Despite this, Congress continues to make benefit promises without a full understanding—or accounting—of their long-term costs. For example, lawmakers recently expanded Social Security coverage to additional workers without fully assessing the impact on the already strained and largely symbolic trust funds. This is like buying a car knowing only the monthly payments, without understanding the total cost or whether you’ll be able to pay it off.

One of the clearest signs of how disconnected federal accounting is from reality lies in the federal balance sheet itself. According to the Treasury Department, only $241 billion of liabilities for Social Security and Medicare are included in official federal financial statements. This is a tiny fraction of the real financial picture: Social Security carries over $50 trillion in unfunded promises, while Medicare’s unfunded obligations exceed $60 trillion.

Why is this massive gap ignored in the financial statements? Because, as Steve Goss, Chief Actuary of Social Security, explained:

An overriding uncertainty exists under the Social Security (and all Federal Social Insurance) programs. This is the Government’s right and ability to alter potential future benefits. Until benefits become due and payable, there is no binding commitment over which a worker has control and so no liability can be recognized.

In plain terms, the federal government is not legally liable to pay any Social Security or Medicare benefits beyond the checks due next month. These are political promises, not binding obligations—yet millions of Americans base their retirement planning on the assumption that these promises will be honored.

Even the very concept of “trust funds” is misunderstood. The Treasury Department clarifies:

In the federal budget, the term ‘trust fund’ means only that the law requires a particular fund be accounted for separately, used only for a specified purpose, and designated as a trust fund. A change in law may change the future receipts and the terms under which the fund’s resources are spent.

This differs drastically from the private sector, where trust funds involve a fiduciary duty to manage someone else’s money for their benefit. In government, trust funds are little more than internal bookkeeping entries that Congress can change at any time.

At Truth in Accounting, we believe the public and lawmakers deserve honest, complete, and transparent accounting. That includes recognizing the full cost of Social Security and Medicare, understanding the long-term implications of policy changes, and being honest about what has been promised—and what has not.

Until we do so, we are not just engaging in poor financial management—we are undermining the American people's trust and passing unsustainable burdens onto future generations.

Top Stories