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

UK inflation, November 2024

Published

on

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%.

If the BOE leaves monetary policy unchanged in December, it will finish out the year with just two cuts of its key rate, bringing it from 5.25% to 4.75%. The European Central Bank has meanwhile enacted four quarter-percentage-point cuts and this month signaled a firm intention to move lower next year.

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.

Continue Reading

Economics

The Fed has a big interest rate decision coming Wednesday. Here’s what to expect

Published

on

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.”

Former Kansas City Fed Pres. Esther George: I would not cut rates this week

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.

Expect a 'hawkish cut' from the Fed this week, says BofA's Mark Cabana

Continue Reading

Economics

Iran faces dual crisis amid currency drop and loss of major regional ally

Published

on

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%.

Continue Reading

Trending