Connect with us

Economics

The US Supreme Court is primed to recalibrate government power

Published

on

Listen to this story.
Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Your browser does not support the <audio> element.

TWO WEEKS before America’s Supreme Court considers whether Donald Trump may constitutionally remain on the presidential ballot, it will tackle a question closely tied to Mr Trump’s deregulatory plans for a second term. The power of some 436 federal agencies that do the bulk of the work of the federal government—from food safety to banking rules to pollution control—comes under the justices’ scrutiny on January 17th.

Herring—a silvery fish of the North Atlantic that can be smoked, pickled or, when young, tinned—is the unlikely star of Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo and Relentless v Department of Commerce. Both cases involve herring fishermen upset with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a federal agency charged with safeguarding America’s ocean resources and habitat.

Drawing on a line in a statute giving the agency licence to make regulations that are “necessary and appropriate…to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks”, in 2020 the NMFS required fishermen to bring an observer along with them on their boats—and to pay that person’s per-diem fee themselves. Space on these vessels is a “scarce and precious resource”, the fisheries’ lawyer argues, making the NMFS’s rule (which was suspended in April 2023) an “enormous imposition”. Making the fishermen foot the bill “adds insult to injury”.

The rule nevertheless found receptive audiences at two of America’s appellate courts. In allowing the agency to impose the regulation, three-judge panels on both courts turned to a Supreme Court decision, Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defence Council, that has managed the inter-branch balance of power since 1984.

Chevron has two steps. First, judges determine if a law governing an administrative agency speaks clearly. If it does, judges interpret it themselves and tell the agencies what the law means. But if judges believe the law is ambiguous, they give bureaucrats the benefit of the doubt. At this second step, if the court sees the agency’s interpretation as reasonable—even if it is not the interpretation the court thinks best—it defers to the agency. In Loper Bright and Relentless, the circuit courts concluded that the law in question is ambiguous and that the NMFS’s interpretation of it is reasonable.

Chevron was popular among conservative justices in its early days. Five years after it was decided, Antonin Scalia (an arch-conservative justice who died in 2016) gave a lecture at Duke Law School in which he predicted that agency deference would endure as it “reflects the reality of government” and “serves its needs”. Yet two justices on the court today—Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas—have made clear their deep disdain for what has become known as “Chevron deference”.

In a 2015 case involving the Environmental Protection Agency, Justice Thomas wrote that the wide berth Chevron afforded bureaucrats meant the court was “blithely giving the force of law” to “agency ‘interpretations’ of federal statutes” (note the scare quotes) and thereby straying “further and further from the constitution”. For Justice Gorsuch, who was railing against Chevron when he was still a judge on the 10th circuit court of appeals, agency deference is akin to “judicial abdication”.

The plaintiffs in Loper Bright and Relentless are banking on at least three more justices keen on reining in the administrative state. It may be a good bet. Brett Kavanaugh, two years before he became a justice, raised critical questions about Chevron in an article in the Harvard Law Review. The conservative majority has not invoked Chevron since 2016. The plaintiffs write that the doctrine has been “the-case-which-must-not-be-named” at the high court for years; the conservative court may see this as the moment to give Chevron, as Justice Gorsuch put it in 2022, “a tombstone no one can miss”.

Dozens of friend-of-the-court briefs urge the justices to do just that: bury-Chevron filings outnumber save-Chevron briefs by a ratio of four to one. But the implications of ditching the 40-year-old precedent are contested. For the plaintiffs, “Chevron’s primary victim is the citizenry” because the approach “literally gives the tie to their regulators in every close case”.

Not all regulations, though, are as hard to swallow as forcing fishermen to dole out up to a fifth of their profits to an on-board observer. Federal agencies, staffed by some 2.2m civil servants with expertise that judges often lack, protect workplace safety and respond to natural disasters. They keep aeroplanes and financial markets aloft. The government warns that abandoning Chevron—which lower courts continue to rely on even as the Supreme Court has quietly ignored it—would “threaten settled expectations in virtually every area of conduct regulated by federal law”.

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

UK Has a New Prime Minister Without a General Election

Published

on

UK Has a New Prime Minister Without a General Election

On July 20, Andy Burnham has been chosen to be the next Prime Minister in UK. The appointment of a new Prime Minister in the United Kingdom often raises questions from people outside the country, especially when no nationwide election has taken place. Many wonder how a new national leader can assume office without voters casting ballots. The answer lies in the UK’s parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the public but is instead chosen based on who commands the confidence of the House of Commons.

How the UK Selects Its Prime Minister

Unlike presidential systems where citizens vote directly for the head of government, the United Kingdom elects Members of Parliament (MPs) during a general election. The political party that secures a majority of seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government, and that party selects its own leader to serve as Prime Minister.

If the leader resigns, becomes unable to continue, or is replaced by their party, the governing party can choose a new leader without triggering a general election. As long as the new leader is able to maintain the confidence of Parliament, they can immediately become Prime Minister after being formally appointed by the monarch.

Why No Election Was Required

A general election is not automatically required every time the office of Prime Minister changes hands. The governing party retains its parliamentary majority because voters elected MPs rather than an individual Prime Minister. If the ruling party chooses a new leader through its internal leadership process, the government continues to operate without interruption.

This constitutional arrangement provides stability and allows the government to continue functioning during periods of political transition. It also avoids the expense and disruption of holding a nationwide election every time party leadership changes.

The King’s Constitutional Role

After a governing party elects a new leader, the monarch invites that individual to form a government. This constitutional step is largely ceremonial and follows long-established conventions. The King appoints the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons, ensuring continuity of government.

Although the monarch formally appoints the Prime Minister, political power rests with Parliament and the elected representatives of the British people.

Could an Election Still Happen?

Yes. A newly appointed Prime Minister has the authority to request a general election if they believe it is politically advantageous or if they seek a stronger public mandate. Parliament can also reach a point where a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons, potentially leading to an election or the formation of a new government.

In many cases, however, a new Prime Minister continues governing until the next scheduled general election.

What This Means for the UK

The UK’s parliamentary democracy is designed to ensure government continuity while respecting the results of the most recent general election. Leadership changes within the governing party do not automatically alter the composition of Parliament, which is why a new Prime Minister can take office without another nationwide vote.

Understanding this process helps explain why political transitions in the United Kingdom can appear different from those in countries with presidential systems. While the Prime Minister may change, the democratic mandate of Parliament remains in place until voters elect a new House of Commons at the next general election.

Continue Reading

Economics

Global Grid Upgrades Reshape Macro Economics

Published

on

Global grid upgrades reshape macro economics

On July 21, 2026, global economic analysis shifts focus toward a defining structural macroeconomic trend: the massive expansion of public and private capital deployment into high-capacity electrical grid infrastructure. As industrial electrification, automated data center hubs, and renewable energy integration accelerate worldwide, sovereign governments and institutional investors are facing a monumental economic challenge. Updating legacy power grids to meet skyrocketing demand has emerged as a primary driver of long-term capital expenditures and industrial productivity across both developed and emerging market economies.

According to international economic policy updates released this week, grid infrastructure investments are projected to exceed multi-trillion-dollar thresholds over the coming decade. Economic planners caution that without modernized, high-voltage transmission networks, regional manufacturing sectors face severe energy bottlenecks, localized power price volatility, and operational constraints. Consequently, infrastructure spending is rapidly transitioning from passive utility maintenance into a vital component of national economic competitiveness and industrial policy.

The macroeconomic ripple effects of this capital deployment are being felt across global commodity markets and labor networks. High demand for structural industrial inputs—such as copper, aluminum, specialized electrical steel, and high-capacity transformers—has created sustained pricing support for critical material producers. Simultaneously, the specialized technical labor required to manufacture and deploy modern grid hardware is driving wage growth in industrial sectors, adding a complex new layer to central bank disinflation trajectories.

For global policymakers and strategic investors, the economics of energy grid modernization represent a double-edged sword. While massive infrastructure investment boosts short-term gross domestic product (GDP) and strengthens domestic industrial foundations, it requires disciplined fiscal allocation to prevent inflationary crowding-out of private capital. Countries that efficiently streamline grid infrastructure permitting and mobilize private investment will secure lower long-term energy costs, attracting high-tech manufacturing and reinforcing sustainable economic growth.

Continue Reading

Economics

Global Trade Realignment and Supply Chains in 2026

Published

on

Global Trade Realignment and Supply Chains in 2026

The international trade architecture entering the second half of 2026 is undergoing a profound structural pivot. As major sovereign economic blocs adjust to the long-term impact of unilateral tariffs and escalating regional subsidies, traditional globalized supply chains are being rapidly replaced by bilateral trade corridors and regional alliance networks. Data released in late July 2026 highlights a significant divergence: while cross-continental freight volumes between non-aligned partners have cooled, intra-regional trade throughout North America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe has surged to record levels. This shift reflects a broader macroeconomic strategy wherein multinational corporations prioritize geopolitical resilience over pure cost minimization.

The primary economic catalyst behind this regionalization is the proliferation of sector-specific tariffs targeting critical industries, notably battery components, clean energy technology, and advanced semiconductor hardware. In response, global manufacturers have adopted multi-tier sourcing models that distribute production across intermediate partner nations before final assembly. While this strategy successfully bypasses primary import duties, it adds structural layers of logistical complexity and administrative oversight. Economists note that while total output remains robust, aggregate production costs have drifted upward, contributing to persistent baseline inflation across major consumer markets.

Simultaneously, currency settlement patterns within these regional blocs are experiencing a notable transformation. Sovereign central banks and commercial institutions are increasingly utilizing localized currency swap lines and digital clearing mechanisms to settle cross-border trade transactions. This transition reduces direct exposure to foreign exchange volatility and mitigates third-party liquidity constraints, further solidifying regional economic cohesion. However, for developing economies situated outside these primary trading alliances, the tightening of international trade networks presents severe challenges, restricting access to key export markets and foreign direct investment.

For corporate strategists and policy analysts navigating late 2026, success requires a thorough understanding of these emerging trade corridors. Organizations must conduct regular risk assessments of their multi-tier supplier networks, model tariff sensitivities under shifting geopolitical scenarios, and invest in real-time supply chain telemetry. As regional economic blocs strengthen their regulatory borders, supply chain agility and compliance fortitude will distinguish market leaders from vulnerable enterprises in the evolving global economy.

Continue Reading

Trending