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

The low-end consumer is about to feel the pinch as Trump restarts student loan collections

Published

on

Andersen Ross Photography Inc | Digitalvision | Getty Images

Wall Street is warning that the U.S. Department of Education’s crack down on student loan repayments may take billions of dollars out of consumers’ pockets and hit low income Americans particularly hard.

The department has restarted collections on defaulted student loans under President Donald Trump this month. For first time in around five years, borrowers who haven’t kept up with their bills could see their wages taken or face other punishments.

Using a range of interest rates and lengths of repayment plans, JPMorgan estimated that disposable personal income could be collectively cut by between $3.1 billion and $8.5 billion every month due to collections, according to Murat Tasci, senior U.S. economist at the bank and a Cleveland Federal Reserve alum.

If that all surfaced in one quarter, collections on defaulted and seriously delinquent loans alone would slash between 0.7% and 1.8% from disposable personal income year-over-year, he said.

This policy change may strain consumers who are already stressed out by Trump’s tariff plan and high prices from years of runaway inflation. These factors can help explain why closely followed consumer sentiment data compiled by the University of Michigan has been hitting some of its lowest levels in its seven-decade history in the past two months.

“You have a number of these pressure points rising,” said Jeffrey Roach, chief economist at LPL Financial. “Perhaps in aggregate, it’s enough to quash some of these spending numbers.”

Bank of America said this push to collect could particularly weigh on groups that are on more precarious financial footing. “We believe resumption of student loan payments will have knock-on effects on broader consumer finances, most especially for the subprime consumer segment,” Bank of America analyst Mihir Bhatia wrote to clients.

Economic impact

Student loans account for just 9% of all outstanding consumer debt, according to Bank of America. But when excluding mortgages, that share shoots up to 30%.

Total outstanding student loan debt sat at $1.6 trillion at the end of March, an increase of half a trillion dollars in the last decade.

The New York Fed estimates that nearly one of every four borrowers required to make payments are currently behind. When the federal government began reporting loans as delinquent in the first quarter of this year, the share of debt holders in this boat jumped up to 8% from around 0.5% in the prior three-month period.

To be sure, delinquency is not the same thing as default. Delinquency refers to any loan with a past-due payment, while defaulting is more specific and tied to not making a delayed payment with a period of time set by the provider. The latter is considered more serious and carries consequences such as wage garnishment. If seriously delinquent borrowers also defaulted, JPMorgan projected that almost 25% of all student loans would be in the latter category.

JPMorgan’s Tasci pointed out that not all borrowers have wages or Social Security earnings to take, which can mitigate the firm’s total estimates. Some borrowers may resume payments with collections beginning, though Tasci noted that would likely also eat into discretionary spending.

Trump’s promise to reduce taxes on overtime and tips, if successful, could also help erase some effects of wage garnishment on poorer Americans.

Still, the expected hit to discretionary income is worrisome as Wall Street wonders if the economy can skirt a recession. Much hope has been placed on the ability of consumers to keep spending even if higher tariffs push product prices higher or if the labor market weakens.

LPL’s Roach sees this as less of an issue. He said the postpandemic economy has largely been propped up by high-income earners, who have done the bulk of the spending. This means the tide-change for student loan holders may not hurt the macroeconomic picture too much, he said.

“It’s hard to say if there’s a consensus view on this yet,” Roach said. “But I would say the student loan story is not as important as perhaps some of the other stories, just because those who hold student loans are not necessarily the drivers of the overall economy.”

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO

Continue Reading

Economics

Consumer sentiment falls in May as Americans’ inflation expectations jump after tariffs

Published

on

A woman walks in an aisle of a Walmart supermarket in Houston, Texas, on May 15, 2025.

Ronaldo Schemidt | Afp | Getty Images

U.S. consumers are becoming increasingly worried that tariffs will lead to higher inflation, according to a University of Michigan survey released Friday.

The index of consumer sentiment dropped to 50.8, down from 52.2 in April, in the preliminary reading for May. That is the second-lowest reading on record, behind June 2022.

The outlook for price changes also moved in the wrong direction. Year-ahead inflation expectations rose to 7.3% from 6.5% last month, while long-term inflation expectations ticked up to 4.6% from 4.4%.

However, the majority of the survey was completed before the U.S. and China announced a 90-day pause on most tariffs between the two countries. The trade situation appears to be a key factor weighing on consumer sentiment.

“Tariffs were spontaneously mentioned by nearly three-quarters of consumers, up from almost 60% in April; uncertainty over trade policy continues to dominate consumers’ thinking about the economy,” Surveys of Consumers director Joanne Hsu said in the release.

Inflation expectations are closely watched by investors and policymakers. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has said the central bank wants to make sure long-term inflation expectations do not rise because of tariffs before resuming rate cuts.

A final consumer sentiment index for the month is slated to be released on May 30, and will likely be closely watched to see if the tariff pause led to an improvement in sentiment.

This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

Continue Reading

Economics

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon says recession is still on the table for U.S.

Published

on

Jamie Dimon, chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase & Co., speaks during the 2025 National Retirement Summit in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, March 12, 2025.

Al Drago | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Wall Street titan Jamie Dimon said Thursday that a recession is still a serious possibility for the United States, even after the recent rollback of tariffs on China.

“If there’s a recession, I don’t know how big it will be or how long it will last. Hopefully we’ll avoid it, but I wouldn’t take it off the table at this point,” the JPMorgan Chase CEO said in an interview with Bloomberg Television.

Specifically, Dimon said he would defer to his bank’s economists, who put recession odds at close to a toss-up. Michael Feroli, the firm’s chief U.S. economist, said in a note to clients on Tuesday that the recession outlook is “still elevated, but now below 50%.”

Dimon’s comments come less than a week after the U.S. and China announced that they were sharply reducing tariffs on one another for 90 days. The U.S. has also implemented a 90-day pause for many tariffs on other nations.

Thursday’s comments mark a change for Dimon, who said last month before the China truce that a recession was likely.

He also said there is still “uncertainty” on the tariff front but the pauses are a positive for the economy and market.

“I think the right thing to do is to back off some of that stuff and engage in conversation,” Dimon said.

However, even with the tariff pauses, the import taxes on goods entering the United States are now sharply higher than they were last year and could cause economic damage, according to Dimon.

“Even at this level, you see people holding back on investment and thinking through what they want to do,” Dimon said.

— CNBC’s Michael Bloom contributed reporting.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO

Continue Reading

Trending