Connect with us

Economics

America’s Supreme Court is inclined to clamp down on regulators

Published

on

A PAIR OF spirited Supreme Court hearings on January 17th confronted a question at the heart of American democracy: what is the balance of power among the three branches of the federal government? The justices seemed inclined to shift that balance towards their own chambers.

The cases under review both involve fishermen objecting to a regulation requiring them to pay hefty fees for monitors who keep an eye on them as they troll for herring. The rule was issued in 2020 by the National Marine Fisheries Service, an agency of the executive branch. It was then blessed by two circuit courts of appeal as consonant with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, a law passed by Congress in 1976.

Yet in siding with the agency, those courts relied on a 40-year-old Supreme Court precedent, Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defence Council, that some current justices have soured on. According to Chevron, when a law of Congress is ambiguous, agencies have free rein to regulate in line with their understanding of the statute, as long as their interpretations are reasonable. This has come to be known as “Chevron deference”. With this week’s cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo and Relentless v Department of Commerce, the apex of America’s judiciary looks ready to rescind this elbow-room for its co-equal branch. It seems judges may soon have more control over regulators handling everything from aviation to consumer safety.

Chevron’s most vocal critic on the court, Justice Neil Gorsuch, stayed true to his cause in the three and a half hours of arguments. Judges “abdicate” their “responsibility” as the final interpreters of the law, he said, when they allow agencies to run amok by making onerous rules like the one for herring fishermen. He suggested that another case, Skidmore v Swift (decided 40 years before Chevron), strikes a more suitable compromise. “Skidmore deference”, Justice Gorsuch said, involves “listen[ing] carefully to both sides and provid[ing] special weight” to what the agencies have to say in favour of their view, but never outsourcing legal questions to bureaucrats.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh spoke sceptically of Chevron, too, but said “deference” mischaracterises Skidmore. The 1944 case is about “respect” for regulators, he said, rather than giving them a long leash. For Justice Elena Kagan, one of only three jurists who resisted Chevron’s demise, Skidmore says “nothing”. The purported Chevron alternative, she quipped, amounts to: “if we think you’re right, we’ll tell you you’re right.”

Justice Kagan posed a number of hypothetical questions to Roman Martinez, one of the fisheries’ lawyers, involving the relative expertise of judges and agencies. Should judges decide whether a new product to promote healthy cholesterol is a “dietary supplement” or a “drug” subject to more stringent regulation? “I would rather have people at HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] telling me,” she offered. If Congress were to legislate on artificial intelligence, she mused, should America entrust courts or experts to resolve ambiguities?

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson chimed in with big-picture questions during the Relentless hearing. (She was recused from Loper Bright due to her participation in the case as a circuit-court judge.) Chevron opponents may think judges can keep their own preferences at bay, but “it’s actually not as easy as it seems” to pry apart law and policy, she said. Empowering judges to encroach on the business of agencies, she warned, might turn courts into “über-legislators”.

Elizabeth Prelogar, the solicitor-general, argued doggedly in favour of agency leeway through both hearings. In a nod to Chief Justice John Roberts, she warned that ditching Chevron would cause a “shock to the legal system”—reminiscent of the words he used in 2022 in lamenting his five conservative colleagues’ decision to overrule Roe v Wade, the ruling that in 1973 declared abortion a constitutional right. And in her final few minutes, with prompting from Justice Kagan and in light of an apparent lack of a majority on her side, she proposed a few ways the conservative court might tighten judicial oversight without tossing Chevron overboard. It would be a surprise if the conservative justices take the bait. 

Stay on top of American politics with Checks and Balance, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter, which examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.

Economics

Will Elon Musk’s cash splash pay off in Wisconsin?

Published

on

TO GET A sense of what the Republican Party thinks of the electoral value of Elon Musk, listen to what Brad Schimel, a conservative candidate for the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, has to say about the billionaire. At an event on March 29th at an airsoft range (a more serious version of paintball) just outside Kenosha, five speakers, including Mr Schimel, spoke for over an hour about the importance of the election to the Republican cause. Mr Musk’s political action committees (PACs) have poured over $20m into the race, far more than any other donor’s. But over the course of the event, his name came up precisely zero times.

Continue Reading

Economics

German inflation, March 2025

Published

on

Customers shop for fresh fruits and vegetables in a supermarket in Munich, Germany, on March 8, 2025.

Michael Nguyen | Nurphoto | Getty Images

German inflation came in at a lower-than-expected 2.3% in March, preliminary data from the country’s statistics office Destatis showed Monday.

It compares to February’s 2.6% print, which was revised lower from a preliminary reading, and a poll of Reuters economists who had been expecting inflation to come in at 2.4% The print is harmonized across the euro area for comparability. 

On a monthly basis, harmonized inflation rose 0.4%. Core inflation, which excludes food and energy costs, came in at 2.5%, below February’s 2.7% reading.

Meanwhile services inflation, which had long been sticky, also eased to 3.4% in March, from 3.8% in the previous month.

The data comes at a critical time for the German economy as U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs loom and fiscal and economic policy shifts at home could be imminent.

Trade is a key pillar for the German economy, making it more vulnerable to the uncertainty and quickly changing developments currently dominating global trade policy. A slew of levies from the U.S. are set to come into force this week, including 25% tariffs on imported cars — a sector that is key to Germany’s economy. The country’s political leaders and car industry heavyweights have slammed Trump’s plans.

Meanwhile Germany’s political parties are working to establish a new coalition government following the results of the February 2025 federal election. Negotiations are underway between the Christian Democratic Union, alongside its sister party the Christian Social Union, and the Social Democratic Union.

While various points of contention appear to remain between the parties, their talks have already yielded some results. Earlier this month, Germany’s lawmakers voted in favor of a major fiscal package, which included amendments to long-standing debt rules to allow for higher defense spending and a 500-billion-euro ($541 billion) infrastructure fund.

This is a breaking news story, please check back for updates.

Continue Reading

Economics

First-quarter GDP growth will be just 0.3% as tariffs stoke stagflation conditions, says CNBC survey

Published

on

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media aboard Air Force One before landing in West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., March 28, 2025. 

Kevin Lamarque | Reuters

Policy uncertainty and new sweeping tariffs from the Trump administration are combining to create a stagflationary outlook for the U.S. economy in the latest CNBC Rapid Update.

The Rapid Update, averaging forecasts from 14 economists for GDP and inflation, sees first quarter growth registering an anemic 0.3% compared with the 2.3% reported in the fourth quarter of 2024. It would be the weakest growth since 2022 as the economy emerged from the pandemic.

Core PCE inflation, meanwhile, the Fed’s preferred inflation indicator, will remain stuck at around 2.9% for most of the year before resuming its decline in the fourth quarter.

Behind the dour GDP forecasts is new evidence that the decline in consumer and business sentiment is showing up in real economic activity. The Commerce Department on Friday reported that real, or inflation-adjusted consumer spending in February rose just 0.1%, after a decline of -0.6% in January. Action Economics dropped its outlook for spending growth to just 0.2% in this quarter from 4% in the fourth quarter.

“Signs of slowing in hard activity data are becoming more convincing, following an earlier worsening in sentiment,” wrote Barclays over the weekend.

Another factor: a surge of imports (which subtract from GDP) that appear to have poured into the U.S. ahead of tariffs.

The good news is the import effect should abate and only two of the 12 economists surveyed see negative growth in Q1. None forecast consecutive quarters of economic contraction. Oxford Economics, which has the lowest Q1 estimate at -1.6%, expects a continued drag from imports but sees second quarter GDP rebounding to 1.9%, because those imports will eventually end up boosting growth when they are counted in inventory or sales measures.

Recession risks rising

On average, most economists forecast a gradual rebound, with second quarter GDP averaging 1.4%, third quarter at 1.6% and the final quarter of the year rising to 2%.

The danger is an economy with anemic growth of just 0.3% could easily slip into negative territory. And, with new tariffs set to come this week, not everyone is so sure about a rebound.

“While our baseline doesn’t show a decline in real GDP, given the mounting global trade war and DOGE cuts to jobs and funding, there is a good chance GDP will decline in the first and even the second quarters of this year,” said Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics. “And a recession will be likely if the president doesn’t begin backtracking on the tariffs by the third quarter.”

Moody’s looks for anemic Q1 growth of just 0.4% that rebounds to 1.6% by year end, which is still modestly below trend.

Stubborn inflation will complicate the Fed’s ability to respond to flagging growth. Core PCE is expected at 2.8% this quarter, rising to 3% next quarter and staying roughly at that level until in drops to 2.6% a year from now.

While the market looks to be banking on rate cuts, the Fed could find them difficult to justify until inflation begins falling more convincingly at the end of the year.

Continue Reading

Trending