Political Awareness

Policy roundup is a section to explain what legislation is currently being considered in Congress, the cases held by the Supreme Court, and actions taken by the Executive each week. This column aims to break down the important legislation to help our readers better understand how current happenings in the federal government can and will affect their lives and what they can do to help influence their representatives’ actions. 

Bills of Note Coming to the Floor in Congress

H.R. 260: No Tax Dollars for Terrorists Act

The House Majority Leader indicated on June 16, 2025 that this bill may be considered in the week ahead.

Summary of bill: 

This bill requires the Department of State to develop and implement a strategy to discourage foreign countries and nongovernmental organizations from providing financial or material support to the Taliban, including by using U.S.-provided foreign assistance.

This bill would require the State Department to report to Congress on:

• Foreign countries and nongovernmental organizations that have provided financial or material support to the Taliban and U.S. efforts to oppose such support
• The strategy to discourage such support and a plan for the strategy’s implementation
• U.S.-funded direct cash assistance programs in Afghanistan, and (4) the Afghan Fund, including Taliban influence over the Da Afghanistan Bank (the Afghan central bank)

Essentially, the bill aims to prevent foreign countries and organizations from providing financial or material support to the Taliban, particularly those countries receiving U.S. foreign assistance. The bill mandates the Department of State to develop and implement a strategy to discourage such support and requires several reports to Congress.

Sponsor:

• Tim Burchett: Sponsor. Representative for Tennessee’s 2nd congressional district. Republican.

H.R. 2481: Romance Scam Prevention Act

The House Majority Leader indicated on June 16, 2025 that this bill may be considered in the week ahead.

Summary of bill: 

This bill is a bipartisan effort requiring dating apps and services to issue fraud ban notifications to users who have interacted with a person removed from the app for fraudulent activity.

Sponsor: 

David Valadao: Sponsor. Representative for California’s 22nd Congressional District. Republican.

H.R. 1082: Shandra Eisenga Human Cell and Tissue Product Safety Act

The House Majority Leader indicated on June 16, 2025 that this bill may be considered in the week ahead.

Summary of bill: 

To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a national, evidence-based education campaign to increase public and health care provider awareness regarding the potential risks and benefits of human cell and tissue products transplants, and for other purposes.

It would: 

• Require the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct research and education campaigns to prevent Tuberculosis outbreaks caused by contaminated human cell and tissue product donations. 
• Allow the federal government to pursue civil penalties for providers who cause an outbreak of infectious disease 

Sponsor and Cosponsor: 

John Moolenaar: Sponsor. Representative for Michigan’s 2nd Congressional District. Republican.

Debbie Dingell: Cosponsor. Representative for Michigan’s 6th District. Democrat. 

H.R. 1520: Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act

The House Majority Leader indicated on June 16, 2025 that this bill may be considered in the week ahead.

Summary of bill: 

This bill would prohibit discrimination on the basis of mental or physical disability in cases of organ transplants. It upholds, clarifies, and builds upon rights established in the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Sec. 504 of the Rehab Act, and Sec. 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. 

The bill prohibits:  

• Covered entities from determining that an individual is ineligible to receive a transplant, deny an organ transplant or related service, refuse to refer the individual to an organ transplant center, refuse to place an individual on a waiting list, or decline insurance coverage for a transplant or related service based solely on the fact that the individual has a disability.

Sponsor: 

Katherine “Kat” Cammack: Sponsor. Representative for Florida’s 3rd Congressional District. Republican.

Bills Passed by Either House

H.R. 28: Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025

This bill passed in the House on January 14, 2025, and goes to the Senate next for consideration.

Summary of bill: 

The legislation amends the Education Amendments of 1972 to provide that, for purposes of determining compliance with Title IX of such Act in athletics, sex shall be recognized based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth. This bill generally prohibits school athletic programs from allowing individuals whose biological sex at birth was male to participate in programs that are for women or girls.

It would: 

• Prevent individuals assigned male at birth from competing in women’s or girls’ sports, but allow for co-ed training under certain conditions.
• Require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study and report on the benefits for women or girls in single-sex sports that would be lost as a result of male participation. In particular, the report must document the negative psychological, developmental, participatory, and sociological effects of male participation on girls.

Essentially, the bill aims to ban trans women and girls from sports. Opponents of the bill say the bill reinforces sexism and abuse in sports. If enacted, it “threatens to sweep up any girl or woman athlete who is perceived as ‘too masculine’ or ‘too good’ at their sport to be a ‘real’ woman or girl, leading to invasive questioning and medical testing to verify their gender, harassment, and violence” (National Women’s Law Center). It also would jeopardize intersex girls’ right to play sports due to the bills’ narrow definition of sex that is “based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.” (National Women’s Law Center)

Sponsor: 

Gregory Steube: Sponsor. Representative for Florida’s 17th Congressional District. Republican.

Legislation of Note from the Supreme Court

Martin v. United States (24-362)

Facts:

• In October 2017, six FBI agents, led by Special Agent Lawrence Guerra, mistakenly executed a no-knock search warrant at the home of Curtrina Martin and her family in Atlanta, Georgia.
• Due to similarities between the two properties and issues with navigating to the correct address, the agents entered Martin’s home instead. The SWAT team, in full tactical gear, entered the house, causing fear and distress to its occupants. 
• They later realized the mistake and promptly left the scene, later apologizing and assuring the family that the FBI would handle any damages.

Questions: 

• Does the Supremacy Clause prevent individuals from suing the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act when federal employees’ actions, even if negligent or wrongful, are related to carrying out federal policy and can be interpreted as following federal laws?
•  Is the discretionary function exception, which usually protects the government from being sued for certain decisions made by its employees, always inapplicable when dealing with claims related to law enforcement officers’ actions that fall under the intentional torts category?

Ruling:

• Individuals harmed by law enforcement actions—intentional or negligent—can pursue government liability under FTCA, subject to the usual discretionary-function analysis and applicable state-law standards, without invoking extra immunity defenses like the Supremacy Clause.

United States v Skrmetti

Facts: 

• Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), effective July 1, 2023, bans puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and sex-reassignment surgeries for minors seeking gender-affirming care. However, it allows the same drugs for non-transition medical purposes (e.g., precocious puberty).
• Three trans minors, their families, and a Tennessee provider sued, arguing SB 1 violates the Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. government, under DOJ intervention, joined, framing it as a federal enforcement of constitutional rights. 

Questions: 

• Does Tennessee’s law (SB 1) violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?

This is the core constitutional question. The plaintiffs (including the U.S. government) argued that:

• The law discriminates against transgender minors by denying them access to gender-affirming care.
• The law permits the same treatments (puberty blockers, hormones) for non-transgender minors with other medical conditions, creating a discriminatory double standard.
• Therefore, it should be subject to heightened or intermediate scrutiny as a law that classifies based on sex and gender identity.

Ruling: 

• Held SB 1 does not classify based on sex or transgender status but on age and medical use. Thus, subject only to rational‑basis review, which it satisfies. 

Executive Actions of Note

American Bar Association Sues the Trump White House

The ABA filed a federal lawsuit on June 16, accusing former President Trump’s executive orders of coercing law firms, such as Paul Weiss, to drop clients or causes disfavored by the administration. They argue these orders chilled pro bono work and diversity efforts. Two federal judges have already struck down similar orders as unconstitutional. The White House dismissed the lawsuit as “frivolous,” claiming full discretion over contracts and security clearances. 

Launch of “Executive Branch” Private Club in DC

A luxury private club named The Executive Branch opened in Georgetown, D.C., backed by Trump allies including Donald Trump Jr. and Omeed Malik. With a $500,000 initiation fee, it’s a social hub for MAGA elites, tech financiers, cabinet officials, etc. With strict privacy rules (e.g., phone checks, no media). A lower tier will open in September with a $150,000 entry fee.