June brought a massive expansion of ICE and immigrant detention, failed efforts to rein in the unauthorized war with Iran, a debate over U.S. support for Israel’s actions in Lebanon, and the confirmation of two controversial lifetime judges. We examine what passed, what failed, and what comes next.
Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links* Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal * Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) * Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com * Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney * Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com * Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536.
Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish
Thank you for supporting truly independent media!
Contact Your Members of Congress: (202) 224-3121
Recommended Congressional Dish EpisodesCD320: One Big Beautiful Bill — a Dangerous Law
S. 2 – Secure America ActJen’s Highlighted PDF of S.2, the Secure America Act.
“Estimated Budgetary Effects of S. 2, the Secure America Act.” June 10, 2026. Congressional Budget Office.
House Roll Call Vote – June 9, 2026.
“Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-CA) issued this statement on his vote against final passage of S.2 – Secure America Act.” Kevin Kiley. June 9, 2026. Official Website of Rep. Kevin Kiley.
Senate Roll Call Vote – June 5, 2026.
“Murkowski only GOP ‘no’ vote as Senate OKs $70B for immigration enforcement, with no limits on ICE.” Jennifer Shutt. June 5, 2026. Juneau Independent.
“Migrants languish in US detention centers facing dire conditions and prolonged waits.” Gisela Salomon. February 9, 2026. AP News.
S. 254 – Alaska’s Right to Ivory Sales and Tradition (ARTIST) Act“WWF Statement on Alaska’s Right to Ivory Sales and Tradition (ARTIST) Act.” Seth Larson. Published on June 3, 2026. World Wildlife Fund
House Roll Call Vote – June 3, 2026.
S.1003 – Lulu’s Law House Roll Call Vote – May 20, 2026.
“Lulu’s Law could help alerts for shark attacks.” Michael Buckner. June 10, 2026. InvestigateTV.
“Drone Footage Shows Massive Great White Sharks off Crowded Southern California Coast.” Alexander Haro. April 20, 2026. The Intertia.
“Great White Shark Attacks: Defanging the Myths.” Jennifer Hile. January 23, 2026. National Geographic.
“Number of Deaths from Hornet, Wasp, and Bee Stings Among Males and Females — National Vital Statistics System, United States, 2011–2021.” July 7, 2023. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.*
“Sharks.” by The Ocean Portal Team Reviewed by David Shiffman. Smithsonian Ocean.
S.2393 – Fiscal Year 2025 Veterans Affairs Major Medical Facility Authorization ActH.R.3490 – Gerald E. Connolly Esophageal Cancer Awareness Act of 2025“Historic Bill Passed by U.S. House of Representatives.” Esophageal Cancer Action Network.
Iran War“Iran War Updates: U.S. and Iran Sink Into Violent Cycle After Latest Strikes.” July 9, 2026. The New York Times.
“US launches strikes on Iran for a second day after Trump says agreement to end the war is ‘over.’” Nadeem Badshah. July 8, 2026. The Guardian.
“U.S. Strikes Iran for a Second Day After Trump Says Truce Is ‘Over.’” Max Bearak et al. July 8, 2026. The New York Times.
War Powers Resolution Votes“GOP Senator Says He Achieved His ‘Mission’ By Yelling At Trump Over Iran War.” Alex Griffing. June 25, 2026. Mediaite.
“Trump blows up at Bill Cassidy over Iran war powers resolution.” Alexander Bolton and Helen Huiskes. June 24, 2026. The Hill.
Senate Roll Call Vote – June 24, 2026.
Senate Roll Call Vote – June 23, 2026.
House Roll Call Vote – June 3, 2026.
LebanonH. Con. Res. 84. House Roll Call Vote – June 4, 2026.
“What Is the Greater Israel Project?” June 17, 2026. Factually.
“Construction equipment multinationals may be aiding Israeli war crimes, experts say.” William Christou. June 17, 2026. The Guardian.
“‘Another Gaza’: Israel is destroying entire villages in southern Lebanon.” James Mates. June 12, 2026. ITVX.
“Israel launches new military escalation in Lebanon.” Luc Bronner and Hélène Sallon. May 27, 2026. Le Monde.
“Welch Leads Eleven Colleagues in Demanding Answers about U.S. and Israeli Military’s Adherence to International Law in the Middle East.” May 7, 2026. Official Website of Sen. Peter Welch.
“Lebanon decries Israeli demolition of homes in areas occupied after ceasefire.” Abby Sewell. April 23, 2026. AP News.
“‘Everything is gone’: Israel destroys entire villages in Lebanon.” William Christou et al. April 12, 2026. The Guardian.
“Israel to destroy ‘all houses’ near Lebanon border, defence minister says.” Steven Scheer. March 31, 2026. Reuters.
“Israel intends to apply Gaza ‘model’ in Lebanon.” March 31, 2026. Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
“Netanyahu orders military to expand invasion of southern Lebanon.” March 29, 2026. Al Jazeera.
“Israel’s military to occupy swathe of southern Lebanon, defence minister says.” Alexander Cornwell and Nazih Osseiran. March 24, 2026. Reuters.
“Smotrich says Litani River should be Israel’s new border with Lebanon.” March 24, 2026. Times of Israel.
“Israel strikes main bridge in south Lebanon, orders destruction of homes near border.” Ahmed Fahmy et al. March 22, 2026. Reuters.
“PM tells ministers Trump gave green light for new offensive against Hezbollah.” January 7, 2026. Times of Israel.
“Israeli reports say Trump gave Netanyahu green light for potential strike on Hezbollah.” January 1, 2026. Naharnet.
“Netanyahu says he’s on a ‘historic and spiritual mission,’ also feels a connection to vision of Greater Israel.” August 12, 2025. Times of Israel.
“Smotrich: Israel’s future is ‘to expand to Damascus.’” October 13, 2024. Middle East Monitor.
“US joins condemnations of Smotrich’s ‘concerning and dangerous’ Paris speech.” Lazar Berman and Jacob Magid. March 21, 2023. Times of Israel.
Justin Smith“Brief of State of Missouri and 16 other states as amici curiae in support of plaintiff’s motion for leave to file bill of complaint, Texas v. Pennsylvania,” [No. 22O155] December 9, 2020. SCOTUS.
Senate Roll Call Vote – June 15, 2026.
Kathleen LaneSenate Roll Call Vote – June 2, 2026.
Audio SourcesHouse FloorJune 3, 2026
PDF with Tlaib/Mast/Miller exchange highlighted
Nomination HearingSenate Judiciary Committee
April 29, 2026
Witnesses:
Clips57:55 Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA):
When does the President have to get permission of the United States Congress to use military force?
Michael Hendershot:
Well, Senator Kennedy, as I was discussing with Ranking Member Durbin, I do want to be careful about hypotheticals in terms of prejudging –
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA):
It’s not a hypothetical, I’m asking what the Constitution says. When does the President of the United States have to get permission from Congress to use military force?
Michael Hendershot:
Generally, Senator, my understanding is the division between Article One and Article Two distinguish between the war powers, which are under Article One and require congressional consent, again talking in great generalities, whereas other use of force, if I understand your question, are things that are likely committed under Article Two to the President’s Commander in Chief powers.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA):
I have no idea what you just said, Mr. Hendershot. Let’s try it again. Tell me when the president has to go to Congress to get permission to use military force.
Michael Hendershot:
Senator, I think is when, because the text of the Constitution, Article One, talks about declarations of war, those would be circumstances where the president would, in a general sense, and use of force that is not war under the commander in chief power, I think those are under Article Two without the consultation of Congress.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA):
Okay, I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be rude, I just don’t understand what you said.
1:04:25 Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE):
Mr. Marck, if I might, just tell me about the 22nd amendment. What does it provide?
John Marck:
The 22nd amendment. Senator, my career has mostly been in criminal prosecution. I haven’t had an opportunity to use that one specifically.
1:05:00 Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE):
Mr. Marck, is President Trump eligible to run for president again in 2028?
John Marck:
Senator, without considering all the facts and looking at everything, depending on what the situation is, this, to me, strikes as more of a hypothetical of something that could be –
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE):
It’s not a hypothetical. Has President Trump been elected president twice?
John Marck:
President Trump has been certified the President of the United States two times.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE):
Is he eligible to run for a third term under our Constitution?
John Marck:
I would have to review the actual wording of it.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE):
I need to tell you the language of the constitutional amendment that makes it clear that no, he is not eligible to run for a third term.
1:15:55 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT):
Who won the 2020 election?
Michael Hendershot:
Senator, I wanted to be mindful of the Canons here. I know this question has come up many times in these hearings, and it’s become an issue of significant political dispute and debate. So, with that, I’d say that that President Biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT):
He won the election. Is that your response?
Michael Hendershot:
Senator, I think my response is he was certified as the winner by counting the electoral college votes.
1:19:25 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT):
Was the capital attacked on January 6, Mr. Hendershot?
Michael Hendershot:
Senator, this same kind of question has come up, I know, many times in these hearings, and under Cannon Five, which I consider myself bound by, that is a matter of significant political controversy.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT):
It’s a matter of what?
Michael Hendershot:
It is a matter of significant political controversy.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT):
It’s a matter of controversy that the capital of the United States was attacked? You’ve seen the videos, have you not?
Michael Hendershot:
I’ve not seeing many of the videos, to be honest.
Nomination HearingSenate Judiciary Committee
April 15, 2026
Witness:
Clips1:19:45 Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL):*
You acknowledge that President Trump lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden?
Justin Smith:
I acknowledge, as Chairman Grassley was talking about in his opening remarks, that under Article Two and the 12th Amendment, that the electoral college cast their votes in December of 2020 and in January of 2021 Congress met to open and count those votes, and as a result of that process, Congress certified Joe Biden as the president.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL):
Who won the popular vote in the 2020 presidential election?
Justin Smith:
The popular vote is not something that’s mentioned in the Constitution.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL):
It’s a basic question. If you took an eighth grader from Kansas and Missouri and Iowa and Illinois and said who won the popular vote in the 2020 election and they submitted an explanation of the electoral college, you couldn’t give them a passing grade. So let me just ask you, as an American citizen who I’m sure voted in that election, who won the popular vote in the 2020 election?
Justin Smith:
As an American citizen and someone who, as Senator Schmidt said, cares about precision, I want to be very clear that, as a lawyer looking at the Constitution, it’s the electoral college that matters.
1:32:20 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT):
Mr. Smith, you signed an amicus brief in December of 2020 supporting an effort to dispute the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
1:38:35 Mazie Hirono (D-HI):
Mr. Smith, on July 30, 2024 you wrote a post on Breitbart endorsing a Missouri Attorney General candidate. Do you recall that post?
Justin Smith:
I do, Senator.
Mazie Hirono (D-HI):
So, in that post, you wrote, “Republican attorneys general are critical in the fight against the radical left. We need true conservatives to defeat the abortion-industrial complex, the lawlessness plaguing blue cities, and the woke ideology invading our schools.” Can you define the word woke?
Justin Smith:
Senator, I was very proud to support my friend who was running in that election. That was a piece of political advocacy, and as I was explaining to one of your colleagues earlier, the partisan views or political activity I’ve had before would play no bearing on my role as a judge.
Mazie Hirono (D-HI):
Well, you’re not responding to my question. Can you define for me what constitutes woke ideology? You meant something. I’d just like you to tell us what you meant by that.
Justin Smith:
Senator, in the course of a political campaign, that was a piece that I put out in support of my friend, but as a judicial nominee, I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to start commenting on political views, because as a judge I would not be applying those partisan or personal views while I was on the bench.
1:42:20 Mazie Hirono (D-HI):
So, Mr. Smith, you have represented President Trump in multiple lawsuits in which he has been found liable for defaming and committing sexual battery against E. Jean Carroll. In these cases, you represented the President in his personal capacity. If a case comes before you in which President Trump’s personal interests are heavily implicated, will you recuse yourself?
Justin Smith:
Senator, I’ve been very proud to represent the President. I will recuse from any case I’ve been personally involved in. For any other case, I would consult the judicial Canons and the appropriate recusal rules. I may need to consult with my colleagues.
Mazie Hirono (D-HI):
Well, considering the kind of representation that you have provided President Trump, you do cite the Canons of ethics and the code of conduct for United States judges requires a judge to disqualify himself “in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” I would say that in any case involving President Trump’s personal interests, you should recuse yourself, because it is very clear where your loyalties lie.
1:50:15 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI):
I think that there has been a deliberate effort to capture our courts by basically right-wing billionaires, many affiliated with fossil fuel interests, that the capture effort focused particularly on the Supreme Court, that it has been successful, that the methodology was the traditional methodology that is has a huge literature in the field of economics and administrative law of regulatory capture and agency capture, that in the same way that the robber barons who ran mines captured the mining safety commission, so they always got the rules they wanted, and in the same way that railroad barons captured the railroad rate commission, so they always got paid what they wanted. An effort was made that has been effective to capture the Supreme Court. That’s the background that I start with. One of the point people for this crew of right-wing billionaires was a guy named Leonard Leo. He was sort of their agent and court fixer in this effort. I have used a graph before that described the corporate structures that he set up to accomplish this effort. I refer to it as the Leo bug, because it looks a little bit like an insect. This is the original shape of his effort. These central groups tend to be actual corporate entities. These are fictitious names, fictitious names through which the other entities can operate. Lexington Fund is yellow here, because until recently it was called Concord Fund. What happened with the Leo bug is that a billionaire dumped on Leonard Leo a $1.6 billion slush fund through the Marble Freedom Trust, and in the wake of that enormous flow of funds, we have seen the Leo Bug metastasize. One new element is something called Alliance for Consumers Action. It’s another fictitious name in this case for the renamed Lexington Fund, and if you take a look at Alliance for Consumers Action, you see that there are actually five different groups that are all almost identically named: Alliance for Consumers Action Fund, Alliance for Consumers Fund, Alliance for Consumers Action, Alliance for Consumers Action Fund, and Alliance for Consumers Action Fund, and they are connected to various different groups for which they operate under fictitious names, so Lexington Fund and Concord were the two that were in the original Leo bug. If you go back to the original Leo bug, you also see the Honest Elections Project. This was used to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court without disclosing its affiliation with the Judicial Crisis Network, which spent millions of dollars to get three Leonard Leo selected Supreme Court justices appointed to the court. They didn’t bother to disclose that they filed an amicus brief in court under a fictitious name, and post Marble Freedom Trust, and the $1.6 billion we’ve seen the Honest Elections project also metastasize. Now there’s an honest elections project. There’s an honest election project, not plural. There’s an honest elections project action fund. There’s an honest elections project fund. There’s an honest elections project action, and there’s honest election project action, and again they connect to as fictitious names for those same four Leonard Leo entities, Lexington Trust, Lexington Fund, Yorktown Fund, 85 fund, Concord Fund, and a new one, the Publius Fund. So that’s a lot of corporate activity if you want to pull with the this old Leo bug in its rather dark simplicity looked like this is now what it looks like there are more than 20 organizations all with these very alike names American Parents Coalition Fund American Parents Coalition Action Fund American Parents Coalition Action American Parents Coalition, American Parents Coalition Action, and they all connect as fictitious names of those five LEO entities: Lexington Fund, Yorktown Fund, 85 Fund, Concord Fund, and Publius Fund. That is a pretty remarkable creation, presumably designed to. Mislead, why would you have five or six virtually identical names for separate fictitious names screening corporate entities, and when we get to you, you’ve got connections with almost all of them, you’ve got connections with the Yorktown Fund, you’ve got connections with the Concord fund, you got connections with the Lexington fund, you got connections with Club for Growth Action in Missouri, American Patriot Fighters, First Principal Actions, Defend Missouri, Publius Fund, and Teneo Network, all of which get money from the Leonard Leo bug from that operation. So it looks to me like what we have here is somebody who is going to be planted on the court and bide your time until you get a case in which this group of front groups has an interest and then they will turn up the way they do in the Supreme Court in a flotilla of phony front group amici and when that happens, I’m here to predict that you will rule for them 100% of the time.
2:10:05 Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA):
With my hypothetical, what’s your answer? President orders Seal Team Six to kill his political opponent, one of them, maybe several, uses the military to do it, so it’s within the scope of absolute immunity. Is it your view that he is not subject to prosecution for that if the members of his party will not impeach him?
Justin Smith:
With that hypothetical, or any hypothetical that you might try to pose, Senator, I would just refer to the test that the Supreme Court has set –
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA):
I’m asking you your view, so just tell me yes or no.
Justin Smith:
Yeah, and I want to tell you that, as a judicial nominee, I don’t want to prejudge any case.
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA):
Well, I’m not asking you to prejudge, I’m asking you to talk about your view, and also what you argued, what you counseled the president in that case. Did you make the argument as a member of the president’s legal team that yes, he could assassinate his opponent if he used the military to do it, and if his party wouldn’t impeach him, that he would be protected?
Justin Smith:
Yeah, so I can’t get into any privileged conversations, as you know, due to attorney-client privilege, but I would refer to you to the remarks that John Sauer had at the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA):
Well, the remarks that he made were, Yes, that’s correct, he would be immune. So, I don’t hear any disagreement with you. Do you disagree?
Justin Smith:
I would disagree with your characterization of how he responded to that question. I think he said it was outlandish, would not happen, and that there would be a process to hold someone like that accountable. And I think the –
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA):
Well, the question from the judge was, if he were not impeached first, is that your position? And that was Sauer’s position. It sounds like that is your position as well.
2:11:45 Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA):
Let me ask you about a different part of the court’s opinion, that is, that the only area where he’s truly liable is purely personal conduct. So, let me ask you this: if a president uses their official position to enrich themselves, is he immune, or is that purely personal?
Justin Smith:
So, Chief Justice Roberts asked a similar question in oral argument, I think counsel referred him to –
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA):
I’m asking you.
Justin Smith:
I want to refer you to the same place, the United States vs. Brewster.
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA):
Don’t refer me, just answer the question. In your view, if the president enriches himself through his office, is he immune, or is that purely personal conduct?
Justin Smith:
Yeah, so I think the United States versus Brewster decision said –
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA):
You’re not answering the question.
2:13:25 Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA):
Trump v. United States test will be applied, so the president is using the military to arrest members of Congress to prevent his impeachment. What’s the remedy?
Justin Smith:
In each of these hypothetical scenarios, Senator, the remedy is –
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA):
What is the remedy?
Justin Smith:
The court would go through the different types of presidential power that might be at issue. There’s a different test for absolute –
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA):
He’s passed the test, he’s got immunity unless he’s impeached, that’s what the court has held, and he’s not impeached because he can’t be impeached because he’s arrested enough of the Senate to prevent his impeachment or even an impeachment proceeding. What’s the remedy?
Justin Smith:
So, Senator, as I’ve said, for each hypothetical scenario you’re trying to present, the court would look at the different tests that Trump v. United States –
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA):
I’m just going to have to conclude here that you don’t want to express your view on it, because I think it’s a shocking view.
Nomination HearingSenate Judiciary Committee
March 25, 2026
Witness:
Clips1:11:00 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT):
Ms. Lane, who won the 2020 election?
Kathleen S. Lane:
Senator, the Constitution outlines the process, and as a judicial nominee, I’m here to talk about what the Constitution requires, which is an electoral vote and certification by Congress.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT):
And in 2020, who won the election?
Kathleen S. Lane:
In 2020 President Biden was –
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT):
Mr. Rikhye, who won the 2020 election?
1:48:25 Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE):
Last, if I might, to Ms. Lane, I’m deeply concerned by the lack of legal experience you’d bring to a lifetime position. Senator Schiff probed a number of questions. My understanding is you graduated in 2017, you’ve been out of law school about nine years. Putting aside your two clerkships, how many years have you actually practiced law?
Kathleen S. Lane:
I’ve been very fortunate to have practiced law since graduating law school, and after my clerkships, and I have worked on over 50 cases. I filed over 100 motions in federal and state courts at every level, and I currently manage a litigation docket of over 100 cases. I’m very grateful for the wealth of experience that I’ve had,
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE):
So you mentioned in your questionnaire that while at Consovoy McCarthy you drafted outlines for direct and cross examinations and cross examined a witness. You only mentioned one cross examination. You’ve certainly conducted more than one cross examination in federal court, is that correct?
Kathleen S. Lane:
I conducted that one cross examination, Senator, but I’ve been very involved in the preparation of witnesses.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE):
One cross-examination in federal court, is that correct?
Kathleen S. Lane:
I have, Senator, and I have also worked extensively with preparing experts, helping prepare. I also took a deposition.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE):
You took a deposition of an expert witness. You’ve certainly taken more than one deposition in your legal career. Is that correct?
Kathleen S. Lane:
Senator, I’ve taken a deposition of an expert, but I’ve also been deeply engaged in –
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE):
You’ve taken one deposition.
Kathleen S. Lane:
Yes, Senator. And I’ve also had the opportunity –
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE):
And the response in your questionnaire that you’ve drafted outlines for direct examinations. How many direct examinations have you conducted?
Kathleen S. Lane:
Senator, I have, like I said, drafted outlines for direct examinations and helped prepare witnesses and second chair depositions.
MusicTired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito
EditingPro Podcast Solutions
Production AssistanceClare Kuntz Balcer
Check out this episode!