Skip to main content
GWGovwatch
CongressBillsCommitteesPresidentMoneyPulseMisconductElectionsMap
Donate

Weekly accountability digest

One email a week with new votes, moving bills, and misconduct updates. No spam.

GW

Govwatch. Public data about Congress, in one place, in plain English.

Built with public data. Not affiliated with the U.S. government.

Explore

  • Officials
  • Legislation
  • Committees
  • Congress Pulse
  • Trending Topics
  • Bipartisan Leaderboard
  • Weekly Digest
  • Misconduct
  • Predictions

Learn

  • How Congress Works
  • How a Bill Becomes Law
  • Campaign Finance 101
  • Glossary

Tools

  • My Representatives
  • Compare Members
  • Bill Watchlist
  • Search
  • District Map
  • Follow the Money
  • Watch Live

Site

  • About
  • Contact
  • Corrections
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service

Data Sources

Congress.gov API v3
Bills, members, votesGovInfo API
Floor speeches, reports, bill textFederal Election Commission (FEC)
Campaign financeVoteView (UCLA)
Ideology scores (DW-NOMINATE)GovTrack.us
Misconduct data (CC0)U.S. Census Bureau
District demographics
Support This Project

This site is free. Donations help cover hosting, API fees, and keeping the data fresh.

All data is sourced from official government APIs and public records. This site is for informational purposes only.

© 2026 Govwatch

Press ReleaseNeutral2026-05-29

Supreme Court Protects Separation of Powers Following Lee Amicus Brief

Mike Lee
Mike Lee
RUT · Senator
Share:
ImmigrationEnvironmentForeign Policy

Context

This press release from Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) was published on 2026-05-29 and titled "Supreme Court Protects Separation of Powers Following Lee Amicus Brief".

Full Text

Supreme Court Protects Separation of Powers Following Lee Amicus Brief

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) lauded the United States Supreme Court’s decision to maintain the separation of powers by keeping activist judges from coopting the role of Congress in the case of Daren K. Margolin, Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review v. National Association of Immigration Judges.
View original source →