Connect with us

Economics

The Supreme Court hints it will keep Donald Trump on the ballot

Published

on

WHEN THE SUPREME COURT decided Bush v Gore a generation ago, five justices in effect handed George W. Bush the presidency over Al Gore. The implications of Trump v Anderson, which the court heard on February 8th, could be similarly momentous. But this time the justices are wary of making a splash in a presidential election and of splitting their votes along ideological lines. By the end of the oral argument, a consensus seemed to have emerged: despite his role in the events of January 6th 2021, Colorado will very probably not be allowed to remove Mr Trump from its ballot, nor will the other 49 states in this year’s election.

The historic hearing marked the first time the Supreme Court had considered the meaning and reach of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a provision that bars officials from holding future public office if, after taking an oath supporting the constitution, they engage in “insurrection or rebellion”. When rioters stormed the Capitol trying to overturn the 2020 election, scholars pointed to this relic of the Reconstruction era—a tool originally designed to keep former Confederate leaders away from the levers of power. Voters and advocacy groups in at least 35 states emerged to contend that Donald Trump is a modern-day insurrectionist who should be disqualified from a second presidential term.

Legal efforts stalled in most states, but on December 19th the Colorado Supreme Court cited Section 3 in ruling Mr Trump ineligible to appear on the ballot for the state’s Republican primary on March 5th. Defending that decision at the federal Supreme Court, Jason Murray (representing a group of voters including Norma Anderson, a 91-year-old Republican) called January 6th a “violent assault” that was “incited by a sitting president of the United States”.

This was one of few moments in two hours of wrangling that recalled the mayhem that transpired across the street from the Supreme Court three years ago. The hearing was dominated by bloodless parsing of legal technicalities and worries about what would happen if the Colorado court’s ruling stood.

In his opening pitch, Jonathan Mitchell, Mr Trump’s lawyer, did not say a word about January 6th. He did not deny that the riot was an “insurrection” (though he did, half-heartedly, later on). At no point did he offer a defence of his client’s behaviour. Instead, he said Section 3 does not apply to Mr Trump because a “president is not ‘an officer of the United States’ as that term is used throughout the constitution”. (An officer, he later explained, is a “term of art” applying “only to those who are appointed, not to those who are elected”.) Mr Mitchell also cast doubt on a state’s power to remove a presidential candidate from the ballot based on Section 3. The second sentence of that provision permits Congress to lift the ban by a two-thirds vote. So by prematurely removing a candidate from the ballot, a state is “accelerating the deadline to meet a constitutionally imposed qualification” and disenfranchising “potentially tens of millions of Americans”.

Justices from right to left voiced scepticism about entrusting states with the power to disqualify presidential aspirants. Justice Brett Kavanaugh made much of Griffin’s case, an 1869 circuit-court ruling that said Section 3 could not be applied unless Congress passed a law permitting the removal of insurrectionists. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas noted that states have used Section 3 to disqualify candidates only for state, not federal, offices. The chief justice, John Roberts, looked to the purpose of the 14th Amendment: isn’t its “whole point”, he asked Mr Murray, ”to restrict state power”? Empowering states to disqualify candidates at will seems to be “at war” with that aim. If states cynically nix candidates from their ballots, elections could end up turning on just a “handful of states”. That, he warned, would be “a pretty daunting consequence”.

It was not only the six-justice conservative majority who were uncomfortable with Colorado’s erasing Mr Trump from the ballot. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson eyed the list of offices Section 3 prohibits oath-breakers from holding and noticed that “president” and “vice-president” are not among them. Justice Elena Kagan amplified Chief Justice Roberts’s worries about the disarray that would follow from 50 states each having a say on who qualifies for the ballot. “Why should a single state”, she asked Mr Murray (who clerked for her a decade ago), “have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but for the rest of the nation?”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor looks to be the only possible dissenting voice on a bench unwilling to approve a new regime of states making independent judgments about candidates’ fitness under Section 3. With primary season under way, the court is probably keen to allay confusion. The answer could come uncharacteristically swiftly for a court that normally takes months to rule: the justices are next scheduled to appear in the courtroom on February 16th.

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.

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