Connect with us

Business

Supreme Court to reconsider a 90-year-old unanimous ruling that limits presidential power

Published

on



The justices could take the next step in a case being argued Monday that calls for a unanimous 90-year-old decision limiting executive authority to be overturned.

The court’s conservatives, liberal Justice Elena Kagan noted in September, seem to be “raring to take that action.”

They already have allowed Trump, in the opening months of the Republican’s second term, to fire almost everyone he has wanted, despite the court’s 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor that prohibits the president from removing the heads of independent agencies without cause.

The officials include Rebecca Slaughter, whose firing from the Federal Trade Commission is at issue in the current case, as well as officials from the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The only officials who have so far survived efforts to remove them are Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor, and Shira Perlmutter, a copyright official with the Library of Congress. The court already has suggested that it will view the Fed differently from other independent agencies, and Trump has said he wants her out because of allegations of mortgage fraud. Cook says she did nothing wrong.

Humphrey’s Executor has long been a target of the conservative legal movement that has embraced an expansive view of presidential power known as the unitary executive.

The case before the high court involves the same agency, the FTC, that was at issue in 1935. The justices established that presidents — Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt at the time — could not fire the appointed leaders of the alphabet soup of federal agencies without cause.

The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the air waves and much else.

Proponents of the unitary executive theory have said the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong: Federal agencies that are part of the executive branch answer to the president, and that includes the ability to fire their leaders at will.

As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a 1988 dissent that has taken on mythical status among conservatives, “this does not mean some of the executive power, but all of the executive power.”

Since 2010 and under Roberts’ leadership, the Supreme Court has steadily whittled away at laws restricting the president’s ability to fire people.

In 2020, Roberts wrote for the court that “the President’s removal power is the rule, not the exception” in a decision upholding Trump’s firing of the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau despite job protections similar to those upheld in Humphrey’s case.

In the 2024 immunity decision that spared Trump from being prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, Roberts included the power to fire among the president’s “conclusive and preclusive” powers that Congress lacks the authority to restrict.

But according to legal historians and even a prominent proponent of the originalism approach to interpreting the Constitution that is favored by conservatives, Roberts may be wrong about the history underpinning the unitary executive.

“Both the text and the history of Article II are far more equivocal than the current Court has been suggesting,” wrote Caleb Nelson, a University of Virginia law professor who once served as a law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas.

Jane Manners, a Fordham University law professor, said she and other historians filed briefs with the court to provide history and context about the removal power in the country’s early years that also could lead the court to revise its views. “I’m not holding my breath,” she said.

Slaughter’s lawyers embrace the historians’ arguments, telling the court that limits on Trump’s power are consistent with the Constitution and U.S. history.

The Justice Department argues Trump can fire board members for any reason as he works to carry out his agenda and that the precedent should be tossed aside.

“Humphrey’s Executor was always egregiously wrong,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote.

A second question in the case could affect Cook, the Fed governor. Even if a firing turns out to be illegal, the court wants to decide whether judges have the power to reinstate someone.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote earlier this year that fired employees who win in court can likely get back pay, but not reinstatement.

That might affect Cook’s ability to remain in her job. The justices have seemed wary about the economic uncertainty that might result if Trump can fire the leaders of the central bank. The court will hear separate arguments in January about whether Cook can remain in her job as her court case challenging her firing proceeds.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Leaders in Congress outperform rank-and-file lawmakers on stock trades by up to 47% a year

Published

on



Stocks held by members of Congress have been beating the S&P 500 lately, but there’s a subset of lawmakers who crush their peers: leadership.

According to a recent working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, congressional leaders outperform back benchers by up to 47% a year.

Shang-Jin Wei from Columbia University and Columbia Business School along with Yifan Zhou from Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University looked at lawmakers who ascended to leadership posts, such as Speaker of the House as well as House and Senate floor leaders, whips, and conference/caucus chairs.

Between 1995 and 2021, there were 20 such leaders who made stock trades before and after rising to their posts. Wei and Zhou observed that lawmakers underperformed benchmarks before becoming leaders, then everything suddenly changed.

“Importantly, whilst we observe a huge improvement in leaders’ trading performance as they ascend to leadership roles, the matched ‘regular’ members’ stock trading performance does not improve much,” they wrote.

Leadership’s stock market edge stems in part from their ability to set the regulatory or legislation agenda, such as deciding if and when a particular bill will be put to a vote. Setting the agenda also gives leaders advanced knowledge of when certain actions will take place.

In fact, Wei and Zhou found that leaders demonstrate much better returns on stock trades that are made when their party controls their chamber.

In addition, being a leader also increases access to non-public information. The researchers said that while companies are reluctant to share such insider knowledge, they may prioritize revealing it to leaders over rank-and-file lawmakers.

Leaders earn higher returns on companies that contribute to their campaigns or are headquartered in their states, which Wei and Zhou said could be attributable to “privileged access to firm-specific information.”

The upper echelon also influences how other members of Congress vote, and the paper found that a leader’s party is much more likely to vote for bills that help firms whose stocks the leader held, or vote against bills that harmed them. And stocks owned by leadership tend to see increases in federal contract awards, especially sole-source contracts, over the following one to two years.

“These results suggest that congressional leaders may not only trade on privileged knowledge, but also shape policy outcomes to enrich themselves,” Wei and Zhou wrote.

Stock trades by congressional leaders are even predictive, forecasting higher occurrences of positive or negative corporate news over the following year, they added. In particular, stock sales predict the number of hearings and regulatory actions over the coming year, though purchases don’t.

Investors have long suspected that Washington has a special advantage on Wall Street. That’s given rise to more ETFs with political themes, including funds that track portfolios belonging to Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

And Paul Pelosi, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, even has a cult following among some investors who mimic his stock moves.

Congress has tried to crack down on members’ stock holdings. The STOCK Act of 2012 requires more timely disclosures, but some lawmakers want to ban trading completely.

A bipartisan group of House members is pushing legislation that would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, dependent children, and trustees from trading individual stocks, commodities, or futures.

And this past week, a discharge petition was put forth that would force a vote in the House if it gets enough signatures.

“If leadership wants to put forward a bill that would actually do that and end the corruption, we’re all for it,” said Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., on social media on Tuesday. “But we’re tired of the partisan games. This is the most bipartisan bipartisan thing in U.S. history, and it’s time that the House of Representatives listens to the American people.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Macron warns EU may hit China with tariffs over trade surplus

Published

on



French President Emmanuel Macron warned that the European Union may be forced to take “strong measures” against China, including potential tariffs, if Beijing fails to address its widening trade imbalance with the bloc.

“I’m trying to explain to the Chinese that their trade surplus isn’t sustainable because they’re killing their own clients, notably by importing hardly anything from us any more,” Macron told Les Echos newspaper in an interview published on Sunday.

“If they don’t react, in the coming months we Europeans will be obliged to take strong measures and decouple, like the US, like for example tariffs on Chinese products,” he said, adding that he had discussed the matter with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Macron has just returned from a three-day state visit in China, where he pressed for more investment as Paris seeks to recalibrate its relationship with the world’s second-largest economy. France’s goods trade deficit with China reached around €47 billion ($54.7 billion) last year, according to the French Treasury. Meanwhile, China’s goods trade surplus with the EU swelled to almost $143 billion in the first half of 2025, a record for any six-month period, according to data released by China earlier this year.

Tensions between France and China escalated last year after Paris backed the EU’s decision to impose tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. Beijing retaliated by imposing minimum price requirements on French cognac, sparking fears among pork and dairy producers that they could be targeted next.

‘Life or Death’

Macron said the US approach to China was “inappropriate” and had worsened Europe’s position by diverting Chinese goods toward the EU market.

“Today, we’re stuck between the two, and it’s a question of life or death for European industry,” Macron said, while noting that Germany — Europe’s biggest economy — doesn’t entirely share France’s stance.

In addition to Europe needing to become more competitive, the European Central Bank too has a role to play in strengthening the EU’s single market, Macron said, arguing that monetary policy should take growth and jobs into account, not just inflation, he said.

He also said the ECB’s decision to continue selling the government bonds it holds risks pushing up long-term interest rates and weighing on economic activity.

“Europe must — and wants to — remain a zone of monetary stability and credible investment,” Macron said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

What bubble? Asset managers in risk-on mode stick with stocks

Published

on



There’s a time when investments run their course and the prudent move is to cash out. For global asset managers who’ve ridden double-digit gains in equities for three straight years, that time is not now.

“Our expectation of solid growth and easier monetary and fiscal policies supports a risk-on tilt in our multi-asset portfolios. We remain overweight stocks and credit,” said Sylvia Sheng, global multi-asset strategist at JPMorgan Asset Management.

“We are playing the powerful trends in place and are bullish through the end of next year,” said David Bianco, Americas chief investment officer at DWS. “For now we are not contrarians.”

“Start the year with sufficient exposure, even over-exposure to equities, predominantly in emerging market equities,” said Nannette Hechler-Fayd’herbe, EMEA chief investment officer at Lombard Odier. “We don’t expect a recession in 2026 to unfold.”

Those assessments came from Bloomberg News interviews with 39 investment managers across the US, Asia and Europe, including at BlackRock Inc., Allianz Global Investors, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Franklin Templeton.

More than three-quarters of the allocators were positioning portfolios for a risk-on environment through 2026. The thrust of the bet is that resilient global growth, further developments in artificial intelligence, accommodative monetary policy and fiscal stimulus will deliver outsize returns in all fashion of global equity markets. 

The call is not without risks, including simply its pervasiveness among the respondents, along with their overall high degree of assuredness. The view among the institutional investors also aligns with that of sell-side strategists around the globe. 

Should the bullishness play out as expected, it would deliver a stunning fourth straight year of bumper returns for the MSCI All-Country World Index. That would extend a run that’s added $42 trillion in market capitalization since the end of 2022 — the most value created for equity investors in history. 

That’s not to say the optimism is without merit. The artificial intelligence trade has added trillions in market value to dozens of firms plying the industry, but just three years after ChatGPT broke into the public consciousness, AI remains in the early phase of development.

No Tech Panic

The buy-side managers largely rejected the idea that the technology has blown a bubble in equity markets. While many acknowledged some pockets of froth in unprofitable tech names, 85% of managers said valuations among the Magnificent Seven and other AI heavyweights are not overly inflated. Fundamentals back the trade, they said, which marks the beginning of a new industrial cycle. 

“You can’t call it a bubble when you’re seeing tech companies deliver a massive earnings beat. In fact, earnings from the sector have outstripped all other US stocks,” said Anwiti Bahuguna, global co-chief investment officer at Northern Trust Asset Management.

As such, investors expect the US to remain the engine of the rally. 

“American exceptionalism is far from dead,” said Jose Rasco, chief investment officer at HSBC Americas. “As artificial intelligence continues to spread around the globe, the US will be a key participant.” 

Most investors echoed the sentiment expressed by Helen Jewell, international chief investment officer of fundamental equities at BlackRock, who suggested also searching outside the US for meaningful upside.

“The US is where the high-return high-growth companies are, so we have to be realistic about that. But those are already reflected in valuations, and there are probably more interesting opportunities outside the US,” she said.

International Boom

Profits matter above all else for equity investors, and huge bumps in government spending from Europe to Asia have stoked estimates for strong gains in earnings.

“We have begun to see a meaningful broadening of earnings momentum, both across market capitalizations and across regions, including Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea,” said Wellington Management equity strategist Andrew Heiskell. “Looking into 2026, we see clear potential for a revival of earnings growth in Europe and a wider range of emerging markets.”

India is one of the most compelling opportunities for 2026, according to Goldman Sachs Asset Management’s Alexandra Wilson-Elizondo, global co-head and co-chief investment officer of multi-asset solutions.

“We see real potential for India to become the Korea-like re-rating story of 2026, a market that transitions from tactical allocation to strategic core exposure in global portfolios,” she said. 

Nelson Yu, head of equities at AllianceBernstein, said he sees improvements outside of the US that will mandate allocations. He noted governance reform in Japan, capital discipline in Europe and recovering profitability in some emerging markets.

Small Cap Optimism

At the sector level, the investors are looking for AI proxies, notably among clean energy providers that can help meet the technology’s ravenous demand for power. Smaller stocks are also finding favor.

“The earnings outlook has brightened for small-capitalization stocks, industrials and financials,” said Stephen Dover, chief market strategist and head of Franklin Templeton Institute. “Small-cap stocks and industrials, which are typically more highly leveraged than the rest of the market, will see profitability rise as the Federal Reserve trims interest rates and debt servicing costs fall.”

Over at Santander Asset Management, Francisco Simón sees earnings growth of more than 20% for US small caps after years of underperformance. Reflecting the optimism, the Russell 2000 Index of such equities recently hit a record high.

Meanwhile, the combination of low valuations and strong fundamentals makes health care one of the most compelling contrarian opportunities in a bullish cycle, a preponderance of managers said.  

“Health-care related sectors can surprise to the upside in the US markets,” said Jim Caron, chief investment officer of cross-asset solutions at Morgan Stanley Investment Management. “This is a mid-term election year and policy may at the margin support many companies. Valuations are still attractive and have a lot of catch up to do.”

Virtually every allocator struck at least a note of caution about what lies ahead. The top worry among them was a rekindling of inflation in the US. If the Fed is forced by rising prices to abruptly pause or even end its easing cycle, the potential for turbulence is high.

“A scenario — which is not our base case — whereby US inflation rebounds in 2026 would constitute a double whammy for multi-asset funds as it would penalize both stocks and bonds. In this sense it would be much worse than an economic slowdown,” said Amélie Derambure, senior multi-asset portfolio manager at Amundi SA. 

“The way investors are headed for 2026, they need to have the Fed on their side,” she added.

Trade Caution

Another worry is around President Donald Trump’s capriciousness, particularly when it comes to trade. Any flareup in his trade spats that fuels inflation through heightened tariffs would weigh on risk assets. 

Oil and gas producers remain unloved by the group, though that could change if a major geopolitical event upends supply lines. While such an outcome would bolster those sectors, the overall impact would likely be negative for risk assets, they said.

“Any geopolitical situation that can affect the price of oil is what will have the largest impact on the financial markets. Clearly both the Middle East and the Ukraine/Russia situations can impact oil prices,” said Scott Wren, senior global market strategist at Wells Fargo Investment Institute.

Multiple respondents flagged European autos as a “no-go” area for 2026, citing intense competitive pressure from Chinese carmakers, margin compression and structural challenges in the transition to electric vehicles. 

“Personally I don’t believe for a minute that there will be a rebound in the sector,” said Isabelle de Gavoty at Allianz GI. 

Outside of those worries, most asset managers simply believe that there’s little reason to fret about the upward momentum being interrupted — outside, of course, from the contrarian signal such near-uniform bullishness sends.

“Everyone seems to be risk-on at the moment, and that worries me a bit in the sense that the concentration of positions creates less tolerance for adverse surprises,” said Amundi’s Derambure.  



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.