Connect with us

Economics

The Supreme Court seems divided over Donald Trump’s immunity

Published

on

THE PETITIONER in Trump v United States was not present on April 25th when the Supreme Court considered whether he and other ex-presidents should enjoy immunity from criminal liability for their official actions while in office. Rather than being ensconced at One First Street among the Italian marble and red velvet, Donald Trump was seated in a less august courtroom in New York City—where he faces state charges for allegedly covering up hush-money payments to an adult-film star.

A win in Trump v United States would not help him in New York, as those alleged crimes took place on the eve of the 2016 election before he became president. Nor would success at the Supreme Court let him wriggle out of charges in Florida related to classified documents—that alleged mishandling happened after he left office. Yet a dose of immunity would spell the end of the most serious case against Mr Trump: federal charges brought by Jack Smith, the special counsel, that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Two lower courts rejected Mr Trump’s plea for blanket immunity. In February, a three-judge panel at the appeals court wrote that “wholly immunising” presidents who have left office would undercut “the primary constitutional duty of the judicial branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions”. But the nearly three-hour hearing at the Supreme Court—which for long stretches sounded more like a graduate-level seminar on presidential power than a judicial proceeding—made clear that the justices think the legal matter is less than clear.

John Sauer, Mr Trump’s lawyer, warned that a “looming threat” of prosecution after leaving office “will distort the president’s decision-making” and hamstring him while in office. Without blanket immunity, he suggested, Barack Obama could be charged today with murder for errant drone strikes and, down the road, President Joe Biden could be held criminally liable for letting immigrants overrun the border. That’s no way to run an executive branch, Mr Sauer insisted.

But Mr Sauer’s pat plea aroused scepticism across the bench. Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether a president who appoints an ambassador after accepting a bribe could be prosecuted after leaving office. Mr Sauer’s reply—that bribe-taking is outside the scope of official presidential conduct—did not satisfy the chief. “But appointing an ambassador is certainly within the official responsibilities of the president,” he said, demonstrating the difficulty of untangling the act’s two components. This led Justice Sonia Sotomayor to resuscitate a hypothetical scenario from the appeals-court hearing: what about using a Navy SEAL team to assassinate a political rival? When Mr Sauer said that a president could not be held liable for such an “official act”, Justice Sotomayor, with backing from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said America’s founders never envisioned that ex-presidents would be immune from prosecution for criminal acts undertaken for “personal gain”. The constitution’s framers toyed with granting such a cloak to presidents, Justice Sotomayor said, and opted against it.

A pair of questions emerged as the justices’ main concerns. First, which of Mr Trump’s alleged actions count as official (and are thus potentially immunised) and which are private (and thus a legitimate basis for criminal prosecution)? Second, more broadly, which principles should judges use to discern the difference, and through what type of judicial process?

Mr Sauer conceded early on that many of Jack Smith’s allegations against Mr Trump fell in the “private” category. He admitted that spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud and conspiring with a private attorney to file false allegations are both private acts, and therefore prosecutable. By contrast, “meeting with the Department of Justice to deliberate about who’s going to be the acting attorney-general of the United States” is an official act, Mr Sauer said, and should not spur criminal liability.

Justice Elena Kagan also pressed Mr Sauer on how to draw these lines. She was aghast at his claim that Mr Trump was acting officially when he urged legislators in Arizona to hold a hearing on election fraud, and when he worked with Republican Party officials to organise fraudulent slates of presidential electors. And she coaxed Mr Sauer into a corner where he, uncomfortably, conceded that perhaps presidents could not be held liable for spurring coups or sharing nuclear secrets with foreign governments.

Neither these extraordinary admissions nor a meticulous presentation by Michael Dreeben, who argued against Mr Trump’s plea, deterred the conservative justices from standing up for a robust reading of presidential power. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas all seemed to lean heavily in Mr Trump’s direction, even if not towards a grant of absolute immunity. And Justice Brett Kavanaugh advocated an idea—recently floated in conservative legal circles—that only criminal laws with “a clear statement…referencing the president” can limit a president’s conduct. But only two criminal laws fit that bill, Mr Dreeben said, and so, under Justice Kavanaugh’s reading, “the entire corpus of federal criminal law, including bribery offences, sedition, murder, would all be off limits.”

As Justice William Brennan used to say, with “five votes, you can do anything” at the Supreme Court. Four justices seem intent on giving Mr Trump enough of a win that his election-stealing case will be scuttled. (This would happen if delays—stemming from an instruction to the lower courts to sort out which of Mr Trump’s alleged acts count as private—push the trial’s start past the presidential election in November. If he wins, Mr Trump could end the litigation.) Four more, the quartet of women, seem keen to allow the trial to get started, one way or another. Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised the spectre of letting it begin “immediately” and was the only jurist to broach the elephant in the courtroom: Mr Smith’s “concern for speed”.

That makes Chief Justice Roberts, whose sceptical questions for Mr Dreeben balanced his worries about Mr Sauer’s position, the probable deciding vote. The nuances and divisions revealed in the hearing may make speedy resolution of the case difficult. The ruling could come in a matter of weeks—or might not arrive until the end of June.

Continue Reading

Economics

The pivotal February jobs report is out Friday. Here’s what to expect

Published

on

People walk past digital billboards at the Moynihan Train Hall displaying a new initiative from New York Governor Kathy Hochul titled ‘New York Wants You’, a program designed to recruit and employ displaced federal workers across New York State, in New York, U.S., March 3, 2025. 

David Dee Delgado | Reuters

Mixed signals lately from the labor market are adding to angst for investors already on a knife’s edge over the potential threat that tariffs pose to inflation and economic growth.

Depending on the perspective, employers either are cutting workers at the highest rate in years or skating by with current staffing levels.

What has become clear is that workers are increasingly uncertain of their employment status and less prone to seek other opportunities, at the same time as job hunters are reporting it harder to find new positions, according to several recent surveys.

The sentiment indicators counter otherwise solid numbers showing up in more traditional data points like nonfarm payrolls growth and the jobless rate, which is still at a level historically associated with full employment and a bustling labor market.

Sound fundamentals

“Fundamentally speaking, things are still relatively sound in the United States. That doesn’t mean there are no cracks,” said Tom Porcelli, chief U.S. economist at PGIM Fixed Income. “You can just whistle past that and just hang your hat on the payrolls report, or recognize that the payrolls report is a lagging indicator and some of those other indicators that give you a better flavor of what’s happening under the surface are looking softer by comparison.”

Markets will get another snapshot of labor market health when the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics releases its February nonfarm payrolls report Friday at 8:30 ET. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones expect growth of 170,000 jobs, up from 143,000 in January, with the unemployment rate holding steady at 4%.

While that represents a stable labor market, there are a number of caveats that point to more difficult times ahead.

Outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas reported Thursday that layoff announcements from companies soared in February to their highest monthly level since July 2020. A big reason for that move was the effort by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to cull the federal workforce. Challenger reported more than 62,000 DOGE-related cuts.

DOGE actions as well as other labor survey indicators showing worker angst likely won’t be reflected in Friday’s jobs number, primarily due to the timing of the cuts and the methodology the BLS uses in its twin counts of household employment and jobs filled at the establishment level.

Consumer confidence drop

But a recent Conference Board report showed an unexpectedly large drop in consumer confidence that coincided with a spike in respondents expecting fewer jobs to be available as well as harder to get. Similarly, a University of Michigan’s survey saw a slide as respondents worried about inflation.

In the world of economics, such fears can quickly become self-fulfilling prophecy.

“If workers don’t feel confident that they’re going to be able to find a new job … then that’s going to be reflected in the economy, and the same in terms for how willing employers are to hire,” said Allison Shrivastava, economist at the Indeed Hiring Lab. “Don’t ever discount sentiment.”

In recent days, economists have been ramping up the potential impact for DOGE cuts, with some saying that multiplier effects involving government contractors could take the total labor force reduction to half a million or more.

“They’re going to have some trouble being reabsorbed into the economy,” Shrivastava said. “It also does shake people’s confidence and sentiment, which can certainly impact the actual economy.”

For now, Goldman Sachs said the DOGE cuts probably will lower the headline payrolls number by just 10,000 or so and exepcts weather-related impacts to be small. Overall, the bank said the current picture, according to alternative figures, is one of “a firm pace of job creation, and we expect continued, albeit moderating, contributions from catch-up hiring and the recent surge in immigration.”

In addition to the employment numbers, the BLS will release figures on pay growth. Average hourly earnings are expected to show a 0.3% monthly gain, up 4.2% from a year ago and about 0.1 percentage point above the January level.

Continue Reading

Economics

Treasury Secretary Bessent says the American dream is not about ‘access to cheap goods’

Published

on

Scott Bessent, US treasury secretary, during a Bloomberg Television interview in New York, US, on Thursday, Feb. 20, 2025. 

Victor J. Blue | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Thursday offered a full-throated defense of the White House’s position on tariffs, insisting that trade policy has to be about more than just getting low-priced items from other countries.

“Access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream,” Bessent said during a speech to the Economic Club of New York. “The American Dream is rooted in the concept that any citizen can achieve prosperity, upward mobility, and economic security. For too long, the designers of multilateral trade deals have lost sight of this.”

The remarks came with markets on edge over how far President Donald Trump will go in an effort to attain his goals on global commerce. Stocks fell sharply Thursday despite news about some movement from the administration on Mexican imports.

In a speech delivered to a crowd of leading economists, Bessent indicated that Trump is willing to take strong measures to achieve his trade goals.

“To the extent that another country’s practices harm our own economy and people, the United States will respond. This is the America First Trade Policy,” he said.

Earlier in the day, Commerce Department data underscored how far the U.S. has fallen behind its global trading partners. The imbalance swelled to a record $131.4 billion in January, a 34% increase from the prior month and nearly double from a year ago.

“This system is not sustainable,” Bessent said.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick: Tariff revenues will reduce the deficit & help balance budget

Economists and market participants worry that the Trump tariffs will raise prices and slow growth. However, White House officials point out that tariffs did little to stoke inflation during Trump’s first term, touting growth potential from reshoring as companies look to avoid paying the duties.

“Across a continuum, I’m not worried about inflation,” Bessent said. He added that Trump considers tariffs to have three benefits: as a revenue source with the U.S. running massive fiscal deficits, as a way to protect industries and workers from unfair practices around the world, and as “the third leg to the stool” as Trump “uses it for negotiating.”

Thursday’s talk was hosted by Larry Kudlow, the head of the National Economic Council during Trump’s first term.

In addition to discussing tariffs, the two chatted about deregulation as well as the onerous debt and deficit burden the government is facing. The budget is already $840 billion in the hole through just the first four months of fiscal 2025 as the deficit runs above 6% as a share of gross domestic product, a level virtually unheard of in a peacetime, expansionary economy.

“This is the last chance bar and grill to get this done,” Bessent said of imposing fiscal discipline. “Everyone knows what they should do. It’s, do they have the willpower to do it?”

Bessent also advocated a deep examination of bank regulations, particularly for smaller institutions, which he said are burdened with rules that don’t help safety.

As Bessent spoke, stocks added to losses in what has been a tough week for Wall Street.

“Wall Street’s done great, Wall Street can continue doing well. But this administration is about Main Street,” he said.

Continue Reading

Economics

Andrew Cuomo plots a comeback in New York

Published

on

Political disgrace isn’t as constraining as it used to be. Andrew Cuomo, whose public career was thought to be dead just three years ago, is back in the spotlight as a candidate for mayor of New York City—and he is topping polls. Mr Cuomo resigned as governor of New York state in August 2021 amid multiple sexual-harassment allegations (which he denied). On March 1st he announced his comeback.

Continue Reading

Trending