Last week, The New York Times Magazine published a compelling piece of long-form journalism chronicling how the progressive LGBTQ movement placed a high-stakes bet: to take a transgender rights case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping for a landmark victory that would cement recent policy wins into permanent national precedent.
Instead, the Court handed down a decisive 6–3 ruling against the progressive position, affirming that the state of Tennessee is within its rights to prohibit doctors from prescribing or performing gender transition treatments on minors. The three liberal justices dissented vocally, but their opposition made no legal difference. Until another case challenges the ruling and potentially overturns it, this precedent now stands as constitutional law.
Many grassroots activists saw this as a seismic defeat for the transgender movement—one that could stall momentum for a generation. It illustrates the deep risks associated with seeking judicial validation for politically controversial causes. The courts are not always friendly to social experimentation, especially when the composition of the bench leans in the opposite direction.
This latest decision was argued before the Court last December, before Donald Trump was sworn in as the 47th president and after he had successfully campaigned on retiring DEI efforts if elected. As promised, President Trump issued a string of executive orders reversing many Biden-era policies on transgender issues—banning DEI-related mandates in the federal government, halting transgender recruitment in the military, and narrowing the scope of gender identity protections. While these orders have yet to reach the Supreme Court, lower courts are obliged to interpret and enforce them, using the latest decision as precedent.
The U.S. Supreme Court receives over 7,000 petitions annually and hears only about 2% of them. Progressive activists are relying increasingly on strategic lawsuits in favorable jurisdictions, winning temporary restraining orders and even nationwide injunctions from district courts. However, these victories often dissolve when reviewed by appellate courts or by the Supreme Court.
A vivid example played out last week in the reliably liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. At issue was whether President Trump could mobilize the California National Guard to secure federal property in Los Angeles after massive immigrant-rights protests spiraled into lawlessness and violence.
Trump, ever the law-and-order president, made clear that if state or local officials failed to protect citizens and federal assets, he would act. He proposed deploying not only the National Guard but, if necessary, U.S. Marines under the Insurrection Act.
The move enraged the Left. California Governor Gavin Newsom, widely considered a 2028 presidential hopeful, filed a lawsuit to block Trump's order, arguing that the National Guard, though federally funded, falls under state control unless the governor consents to federalization. Newsom claimed that conditions in Los Angeles did not warrant such a drastic intervention. The case took on broader constitutional weight: it was no longer simply about immigration enforcement—it now challenged the Article II powers of the presidency and the ability of the federal government to override state control in matters of national security.
Initially, Newsom won. A Reagan-appointed district court judge sided with him and ruled that Trump's order to place California's National Guard under the command of U.S. Northern Command was unconstitutional. The Left cheered, claiming it as a significant rebuke of federal overreach.
But the Trump administration swiftly appealed, warning that the lower Court's ruling set a dangerous precedent: could a state governor veto federal action even in a national emergency? What if a foreign adversary attacked a state, and the governor refused to act?
These concerns resonated. Within 48 hours of the district ruling, the Ninth Circuit issued an emergency stay and heard oral arguments. By Thursday, the appellate panel had issued a unanimous 3–0 decision reversing the lower Court. The ruling affirmed that the presidency commands broad latitude in matters of national security, especially when protecting federal interests, and deserves deference. It was a stinging defeat for the Left and a reaffirmation of federal supremacy.
Ironically, district judges frequently exceed their mandates by issuing nationwide injunctions—a privilege even the Supreme Court doesn't have unless supported by a majority ruling. Currently, the High Court is reviewing this very issue in a separate case involving birthright citizenship. It may soon rule on whether a single district judge can dictate policy across all 50 states. Should the Court strike down this practice, it would neutralize one of the Left's most potent tools of legal resistance: using sympathetic judges in liberal jurisdictions to obstruct federal policy through nationwide blocks. Of course, it would have the same effect if the Democrats regained the White House and conservative activists sought nationwide injunctions from conservative district courts.
Meanwhile, Governor Newsom has limited options. He could request an en banc review—asking the full Ninth Circuit to rehear the case—but even if he prevailed, Trump would almost certainly appeal to the Supreme Court. Given the Roberts Court's consistent deference to Article II powers, it is likely that the High Court would either decline to intervene, leaving the 3–0 ruling in place or accept the case and side with the president once again.
Beyond the courtroom, public sentiment appears increasingly skeptical of the Left's immigration posture. Many Americans are puzzled by the Democratic Party's unwavering embrace of those who cross the border illegally and file dubious asylum claims. Statistics show that over 98% of such claims are ultimately rejected by immigration courts. Yet, once inside the U.S., undocumented migrants often remain indefinitely thanks to a complex web of sanctuary policies and legal protections.
The Trump administration continues to pursue deportations, but the process is slow and encumbered by resistance in legal and bureaucratic circles. Each federal victory in the appeals courts tightens the administration's grip on the levers of executive authority and deepens the Left's sense of political futility.
It's a stark political reality: Donald Trump, despite fierce opposition and relentless litigation, is not only surviving the legal onslaught—he's winning. And for the progressive movement that long believed the courts would deliver salvation, that realization is as sobering as it is paralyzing. Democrats find themselves not only outmaneuvered but increasingly disillusioned.
Rajkamal Rao is a columnist and a member of the tippinsights editorial board. He is an American entrepreneur and wrote the WorldView column for the Hindu BusinessLine, India's second-largest financial newspaper, on the economy, politics, immigration, foreign affairs, and sports.
TIPP Market Brief – June 23, 2025
Your Morning Snapshot
📊 Market Snapshot
- S&P 500: ▼ 5967.84 (0.22% )
- 10-Year Yield: ▼ 4.375%, (2.2 basis points)
- Crude Oil (WTI): ▼ $74.04 (1.11%)
- Bitcoin (BTC): ▲ $101,428.48
- US Dollar Index (USD): ▲ 99.36 (0.67%)
- Gold: ▼ $3,367.91 (0.19%)
Bigger Charts: $SPX | $TNX | $WTIC | $BTCUSD | $USD | $GOLD
📈 Featured Stock
Our pick for today’s featured stock
📰 News & Headlines
These Gold Stocks Make The Grade And Top Elite Lists—Kimberley Koenig, Investor's Business Daily
Are Investors Undervaluing AngloGold Ashanti PLC (AU) Right Now?—Zacks
⭐Recent Featured Stocks
Jabil Circuit (JBL) (6/20)
AST Spacemobile Inc. (ASTS) (6/19)
Cloudflare Inc. (NET) (6/18)
Oklo Inc (OKLO) (6/17)
ATI Inc (ATI) (6/16)
Mr. Cooper Group Inc (COOP) (6/13)
Nuscale Power Corp (SMR) (6/12)
Centrus Energy Corp (LEU) (6/11)
Irhythm Technologies, Inc. (IRTC) (6/10)
Tutor Perini Corp (TPC) (6/9)
More here
🧠 Macro Insight
● Futures Edge Higher Post-Strike
U.S. futures slightly up as markets digest Trump’s surprise weekend strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. S&P and Dow up ~0.2%.
● Oil Gives Up Gains
WTI ($74.23) and Brent ($77.43) rose on supply fears, but trimmed early gains as investors await Iran’s response.
● Tehran’s Next Move Unclear
Iran warns of “everlasting consequences,” hints at wider targets, and may consider blocking the Strait of Hormuz. Trump floats “regime change.”
● Senate Pushes Trump-Backed Fiscal Bill
The GOP races to pass the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” by July 4. It includes 2017 tax cut extensions and entitlement cuts. Parliamentarian hurdles remain.
● June PMIs on Deck
Manufacturing PMI is seen at 51.1 (prior: 52.0), and services PMI is forecast at 52.9 (prior: 53.7). Data kicks off a key week with confidence and inflation reports ahead.
📅 Key Events Today
🟩 Monday, June 23
- 09:45 – S&P Global Manufacturing PMI (Jun)
- 09:45 – S&P Global Services PMI (Jun)
- 10:00 – Existing Home Sales (May)
