Earlier this morning the Supreme Court handed President Trump the biggest win — by far — of his entire career.

Details here if you missed it:

BREAKING: Supreme Court Hands Trump Biggest Win Yet, “Rogue Judges” and “Nationwide Injunctions” Clearly ILLEGAL!

Shortly after the news broke, President Trump held a press conference and it was really incredible to see.

So wonderful to see our POTUS happy and relaxed and taking a victory lap.

Plus we learned a lot of new information too.

So if you haven't seen it yet, watch here:

If you'd rather just watch a quick summary, this one is pretty good.

Watch here:

FULL TRANSCRIPT:

Well, we just heard a lot from the Trump press briefing on what just happened with Supreme Court injunctions, updates on Iran, updates on the Trump mobile phone. We'll talk about that as well.

Uh, we’ve got updates on comments from or on Jerome Powell and trade. Pretty much hit all of the good stuff that you want to hear about.

But first, uh, everybody's talking about what's going on with the Supreme Court ruling or the broad ruling today, along with some of the minor rulings and decisions that came out.

Let's just give you a quick primer on this so you can understand why Donald Trump held this press conference and understand what's going on. So here's the scoop:

You have district court judges in the United States that could want to favor the governors or the politicians in the states of which they operate. Uh, and so there have been rumors—and likely true—about what's called judicial shopping, where basically if you want to get some kind of ruling against people in the entire United States, just go shop for that decision and go to places like California, Massachusetts, Maryland, or Washington DC and get some kind of injunction that could apply to everyone.

Today the Supreme Court said we are not doing that anymore.

And this decision came amongst the discussion of ending birthright citizenship, Trump’s executive order on that, and the lawsuit related to that. Today’s decision did not end birthright citizenship.

ADVERTISEMENT

This is very important.

What today’s decision did is have the Supreme Court say: “We will no longer allow universal injunctions to be imposed by district court judges that could be shopped throughout the United States to be applied to non-party members of a lawsuit.”

So if you’re not a party to a lawsuit, the injunction can’t apply to you. So basically, you can’t have these blanket injunctions.

It’s worth noting some history around this. Uh, President Obama did have about 12 blanket injunctions issued against him. George W. Bush had about six blanket injunctions issued against him by district court judges. And Joe Biden had 28 issued against him.

If you add that together, you’ve got about 46 of these blanket injunctions that have come up against those three presidents together since 2000.

Donald Trump has had 64 blanket injunctions against him.

Now people argue: a) that’s because Donald Trump is being targeted by these radical left judges. People on the other side say Donald Trump issues way more executive orders than anybody else does, and he may be exceeding his executive power by doing so.

The Supreme Court, however, has argued that it’s actually the district court judges that have exceeded their authority.

Here’s some components—and I put these in the Meet Kevin app. So you can see these in the Meet Kevin app. Remember, the Meet Kevin app is totally free. You can get that. You see it under the news tab of the Meet Kevin app.

It’s also what we use for course members to talk about the Alpha Report that we do every morning. Such as this morning—I suggested that Nike could rally up to $82 after these earnings here. Uh, and so far we’re already up 16% of the way there.

ADVERTISEMENT

So pretty impressive move here on Nike, and I think it could keep going up to the 82–84 range. Talked about that in the Alpha Report this morning. Check it out at meetkevin.com if you haven’t yet.

That said, look at the components here of this case.

Universal injunctions—and this is what was held—universal injunctions likely exceed (this was the holding of the Supreme Court) likely exceed the authority that Congress has given federal courts.

So basically these district court judges have been determined by the Supreme Court to exceed the authority that they have—even though they’re claiming Trump is exceeding his authority.

These district court judges are just going too far with blanket injunctions.

So today we basically killed these universal injunctions that would apply to people who are not a party to the lawsuit.

Now there’s some comments here that are interesting so you could see some of the decision-making that went into this. See here:

Barrett, who wrote the majority opinion for the court, said that traditionally courts issue injunctions prohibiting executive officials from enforcing laws or policy only against plaintiffs to the lawsuit.

However, recently district court judges have applied them to anyone in the entire United States. And they acknowledge that a lot of this came from this lawsuit that they’re still deciding and is likely to be decided by October, though Justice Roberts indicates that there will be more rulings coming out this Monday and Tuesday.

ADVERTISEMENT

Amy Coney Barrett suggests that the executive order that Trump issued on banning birthright citizenship takes issue with the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” line of the 14th Amendment. That issue still needs to be decided.

But really, the Supreme Court here is saying that what we look at when we look at precedent and history is: as a general rule, you can’t take an injunction that’s meant for parties of a lawsuit and apply it to people who are not a party of the lawsuit.

And they come up with this example where they basically say: imagine you have a neighbor who sues another neighbor for blasting loud music at all hours of the night. If a judge orders the defendant to turn their music down or off, the order not only benefits the person who sued, but it benefits everybody around that person.

However, that doesn’t mean that other neighbors can all of a sudden blast their music. Instead, you would have to have a new lawsuit against that other person who then blasts their lawsuit.

And this is the example that they give to say: you can’t just blanket apply these injunctions to everyone. If somebody wants to be a part of these lawsuits, then they should—they should join these lawsuits.

Now Sotomayor, in her dissent, says “Hey whoa whoa whoa whoa—you shouldn’t have to put people who are just trying not to be involved in illegal overreach by the president into a position where they have to sue to be a part of the protection of an injunction like this threat to birthright citizenship.”

She says if one person says, “Hey the president’s going too far on birthright citizenship executive orders,” then everybody should benefit from somebody fighting the quote-unquote “good fight,” if you will.

And then of course she goes on to say, “Hey a future administration might try to seize your firearms.”

This is basically saying—maybe if there’s a Democratic president in the future, they might try to overreach their executive authority by taking away your rights, and people not essentially being able to challenge it unless everybody sues.

Of course, ultimately I think what this does is it just consolidates more power into the Supreme Court’s hands. And I think that’s what Donald Trump sees as a big win here.

He says, “Hey—we’re not saying birthright citizenship is decided. It’s going to be decided in October. We’re just saying that district court judges are going way too far in their power to limit the power of the presidency.”

“If you’re going to limit the power of the presidency, it should be done at the Supreme Court level. That’s sort of my bottom line on this.”

And again, we’re expecting more orders on Monday or Tuesday to come out, per Roberts. And we’re also expecting that birthright citizenship decision to come out between now and October.

So it’s still TBD what’s going to happen with birthright citizenship.

Donald Trump argues that birthright citizenship is just a way for people to basically pop out anchor babies. This is a very crude way to put it — to stay in the United States.

I mean even Obama was trying to push for deferred deportations for parents of children who were born here. So basically, you come here, you have a baby, baby’s a citizen, and then Obama was pushing for the parents not to get deported because, well, they have a child there — try to prevent the separation of families.

There was actually a blanket or universal injunction against Obama, and they were not able to implement that policy because one of these blanket injunctions. So both Democrats and Republicans have been affected by these blanket injunctions, and it really just pushes everything up to the Supreme Court, who's got a pretty busy docket already.

But obviously Trump declares this a win even though it’s not a decision on birthright citizenship — that to come. It does indicate that you are taking power away that has sort of been usurped, if you will, from some of these lower district court judges.

Okay. Kavanaugh also goes in here to say that you can ask courts to — once courts decide to — rather than issuing an injunction — to issue a classwide relief to an entire state, region, or even nation. But to not just have an injunctive ruling — to actually complete the legislative proc— or the — the um, uh — the court process, so to speak, and complete a case and then apply a ruling to an entire nation.

You could still do that. But you can’t just issue an injunction, which injunctions are often filed within the first few weeks of a lawsuit without actually fully litigating a case.

Donald Trump then came out and talked about trade a little bit. He says within the next two weeks we’ll send a letter on tariffs. He says that tariffs will not cause a recession. Anybody who thinks so should go back to business school.

In that factories, autos, and AI are pouring into the United States. Uh, he also said that he almost canceled a trade deal with India and Pakistan because they were threatening each other — especially with nuclear weapons.

Keep in mind we haven’t had a deal yet with the deficit nation on tariffs. We did just have the framework of a deal signed with China — which is basically, hey, we’ll lower some tariffs, we’ll allow the import of some rare earth materials.

One of the reasons why MP Materials is going down today. Potentially The Metals Company might be affected by this as well to the negative side. But this is China’s agreement to allow six months of rare earth minerals into the United States in exchange for some relaxation of restrictions.

Of course we don’t actually have a complete trade deal with China, though this is the deal we talked about two weeks ago in London that has now been formalized within the last couple days.

And Donald Trump talks about another trade deal coming out with India soon. Though so far this is just talk. We haven’t seen an actual deal yet. Knock on wood we get a deal.

As far as the July 9th deadline, Donald Trump suggests that we could extend that deadline. We could speed it up. But it’s not like a hard and fast deadline that this Liberation Day 2.0 is going to come July 9th.

So in other words, don’t panic is what he’s saying. But he would like to just send a letter to a bunch of countries and say, “This is what your tariffs are going to be.”

Now CNBC actually had a piece this morning where they talked a little bit about how parts of the economy are slowing down a little bit because of tariffs.

In fact, we’re seeing warehouse levels down. We’re seeing inventory starting to slow down. And there’s some suggestion in the economy that some of the increase that we saw in spending and inventory buildup before and right after tariffs might just be temporary — which does indicate that there could be some slowdown in the economy.

Now keep in mind, personal incomes did decline this morning for the first time since 2021. However, a lot of that was due to changes in government benefits — not actually in incomes from salaries or compensation.

So I think that’s more of like a one-time anomaly and not necessarily a bad sign in the economy.

Donald Trump does also then hit on Jerome Powell saying that Jerome Powell probably has Trump Derangement Syndrome because, uh, after all, you know Trump thinks that rates should be lowered.

The problem here obviously is — are we going to see some form of pass-through of tariffs?

Donald Trump thinks no. I personally think no, because I think it’ll get absorbed by corporate margins, which reduces corporate profits and potentially leads to layoffs.

So my opinion is that the damage of tariffs won’t actually show up in higher prices — it’ll show up in higher layoffs, which means the Fed should kind of get with it and cut rates.

Donald Trump says, “We’ve got no inflation and the jobs market is fine. Let’s just cut rates because there’s no inflation.”

J-Pow says, “Hey, but the inflation is coming.”

Obviously TBD what happens here. You know, some people like ZeroHedge — they had a piece where they argue that J-Pow is just sort of shell-shocked at the last time they didn’t respond to inflation appropriately with their transitory mistake, and that’s why they’re moving very slowly now.

Though markets really seem to be propping up the idea of a September cut, including Kashkari coming out this morning suggesting, yeah, two cuts is probably where we’re going for the year — with our first cut in September.

And so this is leading the bond market to see yields fall at least a little bit. Today the bond yields went negative again. They were actually green a little bit this morning when we first got data. But we see the 10-year is now under 4 and a quarter.

And if you look at the 10–2 spread, we’re still in shock territory at about 52.

Usually what happens here is if you start seeing unemployment pain, the 2-year is going to skyrocket — or sorry, plummetrather — which will make this spread between the 2 and the 10 skyrocket, and that’s when you typically hit recessionary environments.

At the same time, there is some news here and reporting from the Financial Times that Trump Mobile has dropped its “Made in America” smartphone promise — that these phones will be made in America — that has been dropped.

I actually made a video on what is it — just found maker of Trump phone and its stock — and it appears to be WingTech, which you could buy on the Hong Kong stock market, I believe.

So you’d have to use like an Interactive Broker or Weebull — Weebull, Moomoo, or Webull — and it would be ticker 600745. WingTech as potentially a maker of the Trump phone.

Then on Iran — Donald Trump says Iran wants to meet. Donald Trump has now proven that we have obliterated those sites.

He says that no material was moved and that the trucks we’ve seen in satellite imagery were just pouring concrete and we obliterated that concrete. The concrete didn’t even have a chance to dry, says Donald Trump.

And he says that we will insist on some form of inspections on uranium enrichment — whether it’s by the IAEA, the United States, or somebody else — but there will be inspectors.

Now this is actually really good because Iran is claiming that they don’t want to allow the IAEA back in and that they want to continue enriching uranium.

The United States is now being rumored to potentially offer up to $30 billion to Iran and to support Iran’s peaceful nuclear energy infrastructure program — by either paying them or helping them build it or subsidizing them or allowing more sanctions relief.

Some people are calling this Obama’s JCPOA 2.0. I kind of think we need a JCPOA 2.0 — Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

It’s — I guess it’s JCPOA. There we go. Um, because it’s “of Action.” But anyway — I kind of think we need some kind of written deal because we do want to verify that Iran is either in a very limited capacity enriching uranium or no longer enriching uranium.

We need to have some form of framework for inspecting that.

Because as Donald Trump warned — if Iran enriches uranium again outside of some form of agreement with the United States — he was asked would you consider bombing Iran again, and he says, “Sure. Absolutely.”

So this is the big concern if we don’t have a written framework. Is it possible that we could see more attacks in Iran at the same time as not having trade deals or tariff deals?

Of course lots of things could go wrong. We knock on wood and hope that they won’t go wrong.

Donald Trump says he’s not worried about secret sites. I think this is because a lot of people — including myself — have been talking about Pyramid Mountain, which is just two minutes away from Natanz, and has really been built up as a tool for potentially being an untouched nuclear enrichment facility for Iran.

Donald Trump says he’s not worried — that Iran was bombed to hell and they’re not even thinking about their nuclear problems right now. They’re thinking about how they were bombed to hell.

He also says that the Ayatollah thinks he won the war, but says, “Hey Ayatollah, you’re a man of faith. You should tell the truth. You got beat to hell.”

Okay, so this gives us a little bit of a summary of what’s going on with Donald Trump and what he just said.

Just taking a look at what some of y’all are saying in the comments here — somebody says, “All those first generation citizens look out.”

One thing to think of too is — there was a question from Pam to Pam Bondi like, “Hey, are you going to start enforcing immigration cases against babies that are born here then?”

And she reiterates that no, we just want to enforce against, uh, you know, criminals. But then again, we also know that ICE has been essentially rounding up a lot of people who aren’t criminals.

And I — you know, I understand the point of view that this is very disruptive to families and to people who aren’t criminals and they’ve been taught to go through this sort of asylum process and court process here and now all of a sudden they’re getting kicked out.

There’s a lot.

Okay, so somebody says every president wants to lower rates during their term. Of course. It’s an easy way to sort of brag about an easy win — like, “I lowered car rates,” or “home rates,” or “credit card rates,” right? So totally reasonable.

So bro, if he said it ain’t going to happen — the recession is bad for midterms. Politics overrule recessions.

Look at Biden. Change the definition.

No — Biden didn’t change the definition because the technical definition of a recession is two quarters of negative GDP. Biden just reiterated that the National Bureau of Economic Research determines whether we were actually in a recession or not.

And so yes, we were in a technical recession, but they just reiterated that the NBER makes the official declaration of a recession because employment was still so strong in ’22.

Which frankly, it was. We can’t really dispute the data. Now part of that may have been because of the stimulus that — you know — and the money printing that the Biden administration promoted and the government hiring that they promoted.

But either way — hiring was strong and unemployment was falling. It makes sense that they didn’t end up actually declaring a recession.

I get the jadedness of it all, but now we’re in a weaker position where, you know, the jobs market is slowing down. Vacancies are very high. If you don’t have a job, it’s very hard to get a job.

And so the economy is definitely in a slower growth position right now, which is why I reiterate that, you know, we should be cutting rates.

I understand why J-Pow doesn’t want to suffer the mistakes of the ’70s, but I do think he somewhat gambles with a recession — with that as a risk — by delaying his rate cuts.

So let’s see here. What else.

Biggest criminal was Trevor Milton and Trump gave him a pardon.

This is true. Trevor Milton donated a few million dollars to Trump’s campaign and got pardoned by Donald Trump. It does show that innocence is for sale.

That’s probably happened under other presidential administrations as well. But yeah, that was a pisser. It was really lame to see a fraud like Trevor Milton get pardoned for donating millions of dollars to Donald Trump’s campaign. I totally agree with that.

Okay, what else do we have here.

She didn’t answer the question. I think you’re talking about Pam Bondi not answering the question about “Are you not going to basically deport children then?” Uh, yeah. Right?

She didn’t answer the question. So you’re 100% right about that.

Which then is also kind of like questionable because it’s like, alright, so are you or are you not going to deport children, right?

So yeah. I mean, good point.

But then again we still don’t have a ruling on birthright citizenship. So we’ll see.

But that kind of gives you a full recap.

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport.

View the original article here.