The night of June 1st 2020 was a chaotic one in Chicago. A week earlier, George Floyd had been murdered by a Minneapolis police officer, and protests against police brutality had spread all over the world. A day before, the then mayor, Lori Lightfoot, had requested help from the National Guard for the first time since the riots of 1968. Such was the situation when Heriberto Carbajal-Flores, a then-28-year-old carpenter, borrowed a gun and joined a group of men defending a tyre shop in Little Village, a Mexican neighbourhood, from would-be looters. At around 11pm, in full view of a camera, Mr Carbajal-Flores shot seven times in the direction of a white car that was speeding past. Forty minutes later, he was arrested.
So far, just another story of madness on that hot summer night. But Mr Carbajal-Flores’s rather reckless defence of property may yet change America. In early March the last of the charges originally filed against him was dismissed by a federal judge in Chicago. Mr Carbajal-Flores, a Mexican citizen who arrived illegally in America as a child, was accused of breaking the federal law which bans undocumented immigrants (as well as foreigners on temporary visas) from owning guns. The judge, Sharon Johnson Coleman, ruled that, as applied to him, the law was unconstitutional. Citing cases of former British loyalists in the revolutionary war who were allowed guns, she argued that Mr Carbajal-Flores was entitled to an “individualised assessment” about whether he had a right to own a gun; and in his case, he did.
In effect, Ms Coleman ruled that some undocumented immigrants are allowed to have guns. Though it will almost certainly be appealed, the ruling has already set off a storm among Republicans. Marco Rubio, a Republican senator from Florida, wondered if the ruling was “being done to sort of mock both gun laws and also the whole…understanding of the value of being a citizen of the United States”. It shows how one conservative priority, the right to gun ownership with few restrictions, may be about to crash into another: a strong dislike of undocumented migrants.
A generation ago the idea that a Mexican illegally in America could have a constitutional right to carry a gun would have been considered absurd. Yet the question has arisen thanks to conservative rulings at the Supreme Court that have widened the scope of the Second Amendment, which gives Americans the right to bear arms.
First, in 2008 there was District of Columbia v Heller, which ruled that a ban on handguns in the nation’s capital was unconstitutional. Then, in 2022, came New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v Bruen, which ruled that requiring individuals to show “proper cause” to get a concealed-carry permit was also unconstitutional, along with any gun-control law lacking an analogue in 1791. Now the Second Amendment is, in the words of Justice Clarence Thomas, no longer “a second-class right” to be given at the discretion of officials. Rather, it is comparable to, say, the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and religion.
Yet the constitution says that the right to bear arms is held by “the people”, and not merely by citizens. Mr Carbajal-Flores’s lawyers argue that their client is a member of “the people” by virtue of his ties to the United States. Though he entered America illegally, he is eligible for protection from deportation under daca, an executive order signed into effect by Barack Obama. The weekend after he was arrested he got married to his longtime girlfriend, who is an American citizen. His children are citizens. They also argue that his specific use of a weapon, to deter looters, was exactly the sort of behaviour that many conservatives admire. Mr Carbajal-Flores says he was instructed by the police to go armed, and the shots he fired were warning shots. “Our client is a legitimate hero,” says Ross Cassingham, one of Mr Carbajal-Flores’s lawyers. “He’s the proverbial good guy with a gun.”
At appeal the government’s lawyers are likely to say otherwise. In their response to the defence’s first motion to dismiss, they noted that Mr Carbajal-Flores armed himself before he even spoke to the police and suggested his gunfire was not obviously intended only to warn, so he was not acting in legitimate self-defence. They also argued that the law banning undocumented migrants from owning guns is constitutional, on the basis that the Heller decision still allowed the government to restrict classes of people from owning firearms. And they contended that restrictions on non-citizens are legitimate, on the basis that people who have already broken the law in moving to the country cannot be trusted with firearms. That argument was initially accepted.
But that came before Bruen, which in effect established a test that gun laws must be in line with the laws of the early republic. Hence Judge Coleman’s consideration of how British loyalists were treated after the revolutionary war. In the late 18th century, notes Adam Winkler, of the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law, the concept of illegal immigration hardly existed, and so “the people” included everybody inside the United States. “It is clear that undocumented immigrants have a right to free speech and free religion,” says Mr Winkler. “So for purposes of consistency, one would imagine they would have Second Amendment rights.”
What happens next? Another case in the Supreme Court will soon decide whether domestic abusers under restraining orders can be restricted from owning guns; that may give some hints as to how the Carbajal-Flores case could be resolved. A final decision could have big implications. At the moment, for example, the state of Illinois requires anyone who wants a gun to apply for a licence, and bans foreigners without green cards from applying. If upheld, this ruling could force the state to consider almost anyone. Hence the outrage of people like Mr Rubio.
Yet as Mr Winkler notes, there is an irony to the backlash. Conservatives usually argue that gun-control laws do not stop criminals from buying guns anyway. But then conservatives have not always been so keen on widespread gun rights—at least when people they dislike start exercising them. In 1967 California banned the carrying of loaded guns, in an attempt to disarm the rifle-carrying Black Panther Party. The governor who signed the law was none other than Ronald Reagan. Views on guns can change, even among Republicans. ■
Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important electoral stories, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.
The columns of Royal Exchange are dressed for Christmas, at Bank in the City of London, the capital’s financial district, on 20th November 2024, in London, England.
Richard Baker | In Pictures | Getty Images
LONDON — U.K. inflation rose to 2.6% in November, the Office for National Statistics said Wednesday, marking the second straight monthly increase in the headline figure.
The reading was in line with the forecast of economists polled by Reuters, and climbed from 2.3% in October.
Core inflation, excluding energy, food, alcohol and tobacco, came in at 3.5%, just under a Reuters forecast of 3.6%.
Headline price rises hit a three-and-a-half year low of 1.7% in September, but was expected to tick higher in the following months, partly due to an increase in the regulator-set energy price cap this winter.
“This upwards trajectory looks set to continue over the next few months,” Joe Nellis, economic adviser at accountancy MHA, said in emailed comments on Wednesday, citing the energy market and “the long-term pressure of a tight domestic labor market.”
Persistent inflation in the services sector, the dominant part of the U.K. economy, has led money markets to price in almost no chance of an interest rate cut during the Bank of England’s final meeting of the year on Thursday. Those bets were solidified earlier this week when the ONS reported that regular wage growth strengthened to 5.2% over the August-October period, up from 4.9% over July-September.
The November data showed services inflation was unchanged at 5%.
The U.S. Federal Reserve is widely expected to trim rates by a quarter point at its own meeting on Wednesday, taking total cuts of the year to a full percentage point. Some skepticism lingers over whether it should take this step, given inflationary pressures.
This is a breaking news story and will be updated shortly.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell speaks during a news conference following the November 6-7, 2024, Federal Open Market Committee meeting at William McChesney Martin Jr. Federal Reserve Board Building, in Washington, DC, November 7, 2024.
Andrew Caballero-Reynolds | AFP | Getty Images
Inflation is stubbornly above target, the economy is growing at about a 3% pace and the labor market is holding strong. Put it all together and it sounds like a perfect recipe for the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates or at least to stay put.
That’s not what is likely to happen, however, when the Federal Open Market Committee, the central bank’s rate-setting entity, announces its policy decision Wednesday.
Instead, futures market traders are pricing in a near-certainty that the FOMC actually will lower its benchmark overnight borrowing rate by a quarter percentage point, or 25 basis points. That would take it down to a target range of 4.25%-4.5%.
Even with the high level of market anticipation, it could be a decision that comes under an unusual level of scrutiny. A CNBC survey found that while 93% of respondents said they expect a cut, only 63% said it is the right thing to do.
“I’d be inclined to say ‘no cut,'” former Kansas City Fed President Esther George said Tuesday during a CNBC “Squawk Box” interview. “Let’s wait and see how the data comes in. Twenty-five basis points usually doesn’t make or break where we are, but I do think it is a time to signal to markets and to the public that they have not taken their eye off the ball of inflation.”
Inflation indeed remains a nettlesome problem for policymakers.
While the annual rate has come down substantially from its 40-year peak in mid-2022, it has been mired around the 2.5%-3% range for much of 2024. The Fed targets inflation at 2%.
The Commerce Department is expected to report Friday that the personal consumption expenditures price index, the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge, ticked higher in November to 2.5%, or 2.9% on the core reading that excludes food and energy.
Justifying a rate cut in that environment will require some deft communication from Chair Jerome Powell and the committee. Former Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren also recently told CNBC that he would not cut at this meeting.
“They’re very clear about what their target is, and as we’re watching inflation data come in, we’re seeing that it’s not continuing to decelerate in the same manner that it had earlier,” George said. “So that, I think, is a reason to be cautious and to really think about how much of this easing of policy is required to keep the economy on track.”
Fed officials who have spoken in favor of cutting say that policy doesn’t need to be as restrictive in the current environment and they don’t want to risk damaging the labor market.
Chance of a ‘hawkish cut’
If the Fed follows through on the cut, it will mark a full percentage point lopped off the federal funds rate since September.
While that’s a considerable amount of easing in a short period of time, Fed officials have tools at their disposal to let the markets know that future cuts won’t come so easily.
One of those tools is the dot-plot matrix of individual members’ expectations for rates over the next few years. That will be updated Wednesday along with the rest of the Summary of Economic Projections that will include informal outlooks for inflation, unemployment and gross domestic product.
Another is the use of guidance in the post-meeting statement to indicate where the committee sees policy headed. Finally, Powell can use his news conference to provide further clues.
It’s the Powell parley with the media that markets will be watching most closely, followed by the dot plot. Powell recently said the Fed “can afford to be a little more cautious” about how quickly it eases amid what he characterized as a “strong” economy.
“We’ll see them leaning into the direction of travel, to begin the process of moving up their inflation forecast,” said Vincent Reinhardt, BNY Mellon chief economist and former director of the Division of Monetary Affairs at the Fed, where he served 24 years. “The dots [will] drift up a little bit, and [there will be] a big preoccupation at the press conference with the idea of skipping meetings. So it’ll turn out to be a hawkish cut in that regard.”
What about Trump?
Powell is almost certain to be asked about how policy might position in regard to fiscal policy under President-elect Donald Trump.
Thus far, the chair and his colleagues have brushed aside questions about the impact Trump’s initiatives could have on monetary policy, citing uncertainty over what is just talk now and what will become reality later. Some economists think the incoming president’s plans for aggressive tariffs, tax cuts and mass deportations could aggravate inflation even more.
“Obviously the Fed’s in a bind,” Reinhart said. “We used to call it the trapeze artist problem. If you’re a trapeze artist, you don’t leave your platform to swing out until you’re sure your partner is swung out. For the central bank, they can’t really change their forecast in response to what they believe will happen in the political economy until they’re pretty sure there’ll be those changes in the political economy.”
“A big preoccupation at the press conference is going to the idea of skipping meetings,” he added. “So it’ll turn out to be, I think, a hawkish easing in that regard. As [Trump’s] policies are actually put in place, then they may move the forecast by more.”
Other actions on tap
Most Wall Street forecasters see Fed officials raising their expectations for inflation and reducing the expectations for rate cuts in 2025.
When the dot plot was last updated in September, officials indicated the equivalent of four quarter-point cuts next year. Markets already have lowered their own expectations for easing, with an expected path of two cuts in 2025 following the move this week, according to the CME Group’s FedWatch measure.
The outlook also is for the Fed to skip the January meeting. Wall Street is expecting little to no change in the post-meeting statement.
Officials also are likely to raise their estimate for the “neutral” rate of interest that neither boosts nor restricts growth. That level had been around 2.5% for years — a 2% inflation rate plus 0.5% at the “natural” level of interest — but has crept up in recent months and could cross 3% at this week’s update.
Finally, the committee may adjust the interest it pays on its overnight repo operations by 0.05 percentage point in response to the fed funds rate drifting to near the bottom of its target range. The “ON RPP” rate acts as a floor for the funds rate and is currently at 4.55% while the effective funds rate is 4.58%. Minutes from the November FOMC meeting indicated officials were considering a “technical adjustment” to the rate.
A briefcase filled with Iranian rial banknotes sits on display at a currency exchange market on Ferdowsi street in Tehran, Iran, on Saturday, Jan. 6, 2018.
Ali Mohammadi | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Iran is confronting its worst set of crises in years, facing a spiraling economy along with a series of unprecedented geopolitical and military blows to its power in the Middle East.
Over the weekend, Iran’s currency, the rial, hit a record low of 756,000 to the dollar, according to Reuters. Since September, the embattled currency has suffered the ripple effects of devastating hits to Iran’s proxies, including Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestinian militant group Hamas, as well as the November election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency.
With the fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad amid a shock offensive by rebel groups, Tehran lost its most important ally in the Middle East. Assad, who is accused of war crimes against his own people, fled to Russia and left a highly fractured country behind him.
“The fall of Assad has existential implications for the Islamic Republic,” Behnam ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, told CNBC. “Lest we forget, the regime ahs spent well over a decade in treasure, blood, and reputation to save a regime which ultimately folded in less than two weeks.”
The currency’s fall exposes the extent of the hardship faced by ordinary Iranians, who struggle to afford everyday goods and suffer high inflation and unemployment after years of heavy Western sanctions compounded by domestic corruption and economic mismanagement.
Trump has pledged to take a hard line on Iran and will be re-entering the White House roughly six years after unilaterally pulling the U.S. out of the Iranian nuclear deal and re-imposing sweeping sanctions on the country.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has expressed his government’s willingness to negotiate and revive the deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which lifted some sanctions on Iran in exchange for curbs to its nuclear program. But the attempted outreach comes at a time when the International Atomic Energy Agency says Tehran is enriching uranium at record levels, reaching 60% purity — a short technical step from the weapons-grade purity level of 90%.