Connect with us

Economics

Two ideas of free speech duel at America’s Supreme Court

Published

on

BACK WHEN X was still Twitter, Ron DeSantis, Florida’s governor, was no fan of the social-media company. In May 2021 he heralded his signing of Senate Bill 7072 as a strike against censorship. Residents of Cuba and Venezuela may be victimised by “tyrannical behaviour”, he said, but Floridians will now be “guaranteed protection against the Silicon Valley elites”. By “taking back the virtual public square”, the state’s lieutenant-governor, Jeanette Nuñez, added, the law will rescue discourse from a “radical leftist narrative”.

In May 2023, with Twitter rebranded and in Elon Musk’s hands, Mr DeSantis opted to launch his ill-fated presidential campaign on the site, and X’s content moderation has been overhauled. But Senate Bill 7072 remains on the books, along with a similar law, House Bill 20, enacted in Texas in September 2021. Challenges to both laws—based on the free-speech guarantee of the First Amendment—come to the Supreme Court on February 26th.

The plaintiffs in NetChoice v Paxton and Moody v NetChoice contend that Texas and Florida are unconstitutionally intruding on private companies’ decision-making about speech they host on their sites. NetChoice represents giants like X, Facebook, Google (owner of YouTube) and TikTok, as well as smaller platforms like Etsy and Pinterest. It argues that “governmental efforts to interfere with the editorial discretion of private parties is forbidden censorship.”

The laws prohibit removing and “shadow-banning” users on large social-media platforms. (Florida’s applies to those with more than 100m active users; Texas sets the floor at 50m.) Texas bars sites from censoring posts based on “viewpoint”; Florida protects users from “inconsistent and unfair actions”. The Sunshine State takes particular aim at sites that ban candidates for state office, a move that can draw fines of up to $250,000 a day. Other violations could expose sites to lawsuits with damages up to $100,000 apiece. Both laws also impose detailed reporting on content moderation—requirements the sites say are “enormously burdensome” but the states insist are “quite modest”.

Two district courts sided with NetChoice’s First Amendment claim, but their respective appellate courts did not see eye to eye. Florida’s law remained blocked by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Texas, meanwhile, prevailed at the Fifth Circuit but the Supreme Court granted NetChoice’s request to temporarily freeze HB 20. Now the justices will give the matter a full review.

The tricky question at the heart of these cases is how to conceptualise social-media companies. Are they akin to newspapers, which have total control over which stories appear in their pages? Or are they closer to phone companies or delivery services, which must (with few exceptions) transmit whatever messages or packages their customers wish to dispatch?

The Supreme Court decided in 1974 that Florida could not require newspapers to publish responses from political candidates who had been criticised in their editorial pages. Two decades later it ruled that organisers of a St Patrick’s Day parade did not have to let a gay-pride group march along the route. And last year it allowed a web designer to turn down clients seeking websites for same-sex weddings.

These and other rulings suggest that the First Amendment protects both individuals and businesses from being compelled to communicate ideas with which they disagree. But Florida and Texas say that the likes of Facebook and YouTube are neither publishers nor private citizens but “common carriers” and can be made subject to neutral rules of content moderation. By doing business with all comers, the platforms “can be required to open [their] doors on equal terms to all”—a duty that may be heightened by what the states characterise as “monopoly power in their respective markets”.

As “platform[s] for all ideas”, Texas argues, large social-media sites are easily distinguished from choosy publishers or even bookstores, which can decline to stock any title for any reason. Unlike a cable-television provider or cinema, which “carefully selects and compiles the materials it presents”, Facebook and TikTok (by and large) let their users post what they like. Given the “vastness and diversity” of that content, Florida argues, there is no chance anyone would mistake the views of those who post for those of the companies that host.

Sorting out whether YouTube is more like the Miami Herald, a cinema or AT&T is at the heart of the tangle before the Supreme Court. But differing claims to free speech are also in play, which helps explain why the politics of the NetChoice cases are interestingly scrambled. Although the Florida and Texas laws arrived in a swirl of anti-woke rhetoric, Scott Keller, a conservative former Texas solicitor-general, argued against the Lone Star State’s social-media crackdown at the Fifth Circuit. And odd bedfellows will be arguing alongside one another for NetChoice at the Supreme Court: Paul Clement, the foremost litigator of America’s conservative legal movement, and Elizabeth Prelogar, President Joe Biden’s solicitor-general.

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