Four Men Charged After 53 Migrants Die In Smuggling Disaster

Four Men Charged After 53 Migrants Die In Smuggling Disaster

Four men, including two Mexican nationals, have been arrested in connection with the people-smuggling operation that resulted in the horrific death of 53 people in the back of a semi-trailer near the southern US border.

As Bloomberg reports, 45-year-old Homero Zamorano Jr. was arrested on Monday after San Antonio police found him hiding in the brush near the trailer, the US DOJ announced in a statement. His clothing and appearance matched video provided by the border patrol of the truck when it passed through an immigration checkpoint without incident.

Emergency personnel recovered the bodies of 48 individuals from the trailer and transported 16 others to a local hospital, where five died. All of the victims are believed to be in the US illegally, with most hailing from Mexico or Central America. Temperatures that day had reached as high as 103 degrees Fahrenheit (39 Celsius).

Police said they searched Zamorano’s cell phone and traced discussions he had about transporting the smuggled migrants with another man, Christian Martinez, 28, who was arrested in Palestine, Texas.Bloomberg

Zamorano was charged with smuggling aliens resulting in death, while Martinez was slapped with conspiracy to transport illegal aliens resulting in death. Both could see life in prison or a potential death sentence, according to the DOJ.

Meanwhile, two other men were arrested in connection with the case after police traced the registration of the tractor trailer to a house in San Antonio. One of the men had a gun in his truck outside, while police found more guns inside.

Mexican nationals Juan Claudio D’Luna-Mendez, 23, and Juan Francisco D’Luna-Bilboa, 48, were each charged with one count of being an illegal alien in possession of a weapon – a charge which could land them in prison for up to a decade.

With all four men in federal custody, Zamorano is expected to appear in court on Thursday, while the Mexican nationals are scheduled to appear on Friday for a detention hearing in San Antonio. Martinez, who appeared Wednesday, will be transported to San Antonio.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/30/2022 – 19:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/A8cYelZ Tyler Durden

DOJ Has VA Suspend All Benefits Of Jan. 6 Prisoner

DOJ Has VA Suspend All Benefits Of Jan. 6 Prisoner

Authored by Patricia Tolson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Just when the wife of one incarcerated Jan. 6 prisoner believed things couldn’t get worse, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) informed her they are going to suspend all of her husband’s benefits. According to United States Representative Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), “this is what you have when vindictive leftists get in charge of major parts of the government.”

The envelope containing the unsigned letter received by Angel and Kenneth Harrelson from the “Director Regional Office” “informing them that their Veterans Benefits are being suspended due to 38 U.S. Code § 6105 – Forfeiture for subversive activities, which requires that an individual be “convicted” of a listed crime, not “indicted.” (Courtesy of Angel Harrelson)

In an unsigned letter from the VA—dated June 13 and appearing to originate from the “Director Regional Office,”—Angel and Kenneth Harrelson were notified that the administration “received information from the United States Department of Justice” that Kenneth had been “indicted and charged with Seditious Conspiracy (18 U.S.C 2384).”

Page 1 of the unsigned letter received by Angel and Kenneth Harrelson from the “Director Regional Office” “informing them that their Veterans Benefits are being suspended due to 38 U.S. Code § 6105 – Forfeiture for subversive activities, which requires that an individual be “convicted” of a listed crime, not “indicted.” (Courtesy of Angel Harrelson)

The letter further noted that: “Pursuant to 38 U.S. Code § 6105(a)”—Forfeiture for subversive activities—”after receiving notice of an indictment for the above offense” the “VA must suspend payment of gratuitous benefits pending disposition of the criminal proceedings. If convicted, gratuitous benefits are forfeited, automatically, from and after the date of the offense.”

The “date of the offense” is Jan. 6, 2021.

“Based on the information above,” the VA further informed the Harrelsons that they “propose to suspend” their “compensation benefit payments effective September 1, 2022, which is the first day of the month following a 60-day due process period.”

“If you are subsequently acquitted of this charge, payments can be resumed from the date of suspension, if otherwise in order. If you are convicted, benefits will be retroactively terminated effective January 5, 2021, the date proceeding the offense, or from the date your award commenced, whichever is later.”

Kenneth Harrelson taking photographs inside the Rotunda inside the Capitol Building on Jan. 6, 2021. (FBI Criminal Complaint)

According to 38 U.S. Code § 6105:

“Any individual who is CONVICTED after September 1, 1959, of any offense listed in subsection (b) of this section shall, from and after the date of commission of such offense, have no right to gratuitous benefits (including the right to burial in a national cemetery) under laws administered by the Secretary based on periods of military, naval, air, or space service commencing before the date of the commission of such offense and no other person shall be entitled to such benefits on account of such individual.”

According to the 18-page criminal complaint (pdf), Kenneth Harrelson was charged with Conspiracy (1) Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting (2) Destruction of Government Property and Aiding and Abetting (3) Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds (4) Tampering with Documents or Proceedings (5). According to the Arrest Warrant (pdf), Kenneth was arrested at his home in Titusville, Florida, on March 10, 2021. According to the Criminal Docket, the seditious conspiracy charge was added with several others on Jan. 12, 2022.

Kenneth is currently being held in the Correctional Treatment Facility in southeast Washington and has been incarcerated, without a trial and without being convicted of any crime, for over 475 days.

Page two of the letter explains that: “if convicted,” the change in his benefits “may mean” the VA had paid “too much,” in which case they will send another letter letting them “know if the changes go through.” If so, the “VA’s Debt Management Center will send a letter explaining how much” they’ve “been overpaid, as well as how to repay this debt.”

Page 2 of the unsigned June 13, 2022 letter received by Angel and Kenneth Harrelson from the “Director Regional Office” “informing them that their Veterans Benefits are being suspended due to 38 U.S. Code § 6105 – Forfeiture for subversive activities and that they may have “been overpaid, as well as how to repay this debt.” (Courtesy of Angel Harrelson)

Page three of the letter advises the Harrelsons how to obtain representation.

Page 3 of the unsigned June 13, 2022 letter received by Angel and Kenneth Harrelson from the “Director Regional Office” “informing them that their Veterans Benefits are being suspended due to 38 U.S. Code § 6105 and advises the Harrelsons how to obtain representation.

Page four provides clarification of what VA.gov is and provides information on how “enrolling in VA.gov is easy.”

Page 4, the signature page, of the unsigned June 13, 2022 letter received by Angel and Kenneth Harrelson from the “Director Regional Office” providing clarification of “what” VA.gov “is” and provides information on how “enrolling in VA.gov is easy.” (Courtesy of Angel Harrelson)

 “This is what you have when vindictive leftists get in charge of major parts of the government,” Gohmert told The Epoch Times. “What we’re seeing is when immoral, mean-spirited, leftist people take over the government, they use every aspect of the government in order to try to inflict their hatred on people with whom they disagree. Even after most of the Democrats in the House of Representatives obstructed an official session of Congress back in June 2016, at that time, none of us were saying these people have got to be put in jail. We just wanted to be able to go back into session as the majority. But when they have power, obstructing an official session of Congress—which is the worst charge many of the January Sixers were charged with—we see the left wanting to bury them, take away any benefit, destroy their lives and not only their lives they want to destroy their homes, destroy their children’s lives. This is an evil, toxic atmosphere when these types of people are in control of so much of the federal government.”

Following the June 12 shooting at Pulse Night Club in Orlando, Florida, members of the House Democratic Caucus staged a pre-planned and well-organized protest sit-in on the House floor just after the House convened on June 22, 2016. They demanded that then-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) allow a vote on gun control. Through the day and into the next morning, they obstructed proceedings, chanted “no bill, no break,” and sang “We shall overcome.”

According to The Guardian, Gohmert “stood toe to toe” with then United States Representative Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) “in a confrontation that looked set to spiral out of control” until Rep. John Lewis (D-Pa.) and others intervened. Gohmert said he was angered by the disrespect shown by Democrats for the sanctity of the House chamber, which he called a “last bastion of civility.” He was also angered by the disrespect shown to the 49 victims of the shooting. “I’m amazed here on the House floor that to them [Democrats] it’s all about guns,” he said. On May 19, the Internal Revenue Service announced Brown “pleaded guilty to engaging in a corrupt endeavor to obstruct and impede the due administration of the internal revenue laws” and was “ordered to pay $62,650.99 in restitution.”

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/30/2022 – 19:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/OdGbLXe Tyler Durden

The One Housing Chart That Shows A ‘Buyer’s Market’ Has Returned

The One Housing Chart That Shows A ‘Buyer’s Market’ Has Returned

The red hot pandemic-era housing market is cooling as historically tight available inventory shows signs of reversing. 

An affordability crisis has removed millions of new home buyers as the number of active US listings soared 18.7% in June from a year earlier, the most significant increase in Realtor.com’s data going back to 2017, according to Bloomberg. The days of insane bidding wars, waiving home inspections, and putting in an offer 20% or more over the list price appear to be over. In other words, a buyer’s market could be emerging. 

“While we anticipate that more inventory will eventually cool the feverish pace of competition, the typical buyer has yet to see meaningful relief from quick-selling homes and record-high asking prices,” said Danielle Hale, chief economist for Realtor.com. 

Austin, Texas; Phoenix, Arizona; and Raleigh, North Carolina saw active listings more than double from a year ago. Nashville, Tennessee, active listings jumped 86%, and 72% in the Riverside, California. 

The Federal Reserve’s most aggressive tightening campaign sent the 30-year fixed-loan mortgage rate from 3% to over 6% this year (back in March, we warned coming rate explosion would trigger a housing affordability crisis), removing millions of new home buyers who can’t afford the cost of homeownership as the median existing-home sales price was around $407k in May. 

Even though inventory is historically tight, supply is expected to increase in markets across the country as demand for loan applications among prospective buyers slumps. Fewer buyers equal more inventory. 

The takeaway is that inventory is rising as homes stay on the market longer because demand evaporated thanks to the housing affordability crisis — this could mean a housing top is nearing. 

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/30/2022 – 18:50

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/l5M38dm Tyler Durden

Without Roe v. Wade, Litigants Look to State Constitutions for Protection of Abortion Rights


Abortion-rights supporters demonstrate outside the U.S. Supreme Court on June 30, 2022.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion. But several state supreme courts have rejected abortion bans as inconsistent with state constitutional provisions, and current litigation over new restrictions seeks to establish more such precedents. Some lawsuits do not claim constitutional protection for abortion rights but instead seek to delay implementation of “trigger” bans designed to take effect after the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 precedent that the Supreme Court repudiated in Dobbs. Here is a rundown of where things stand.

PRE-DOBBS DECISIONS

Alaska

In 1997, the Alaska Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state constitution “protects reproductive autonomy, including the right to abortion.” The court cited Article I, Section 22 of the Alaska Constitution, which was adopted in 1972 and says, “The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed.”

The justices concluded that “a woman’s control of her body, and the choice whether or when to bear children, involves the kind of decision-making that is “necessary for…civilized life and ordered liberty.” They added that “our prior decisions support the further conclusion that the right to an abortion is the kind of fundamental right and privilege encompassed within the intention and spirit of Alaska’s constitutional language.”

California

In 1969, four years before Roe established a constitutional right to abortion, the California Supreme Court ruled that a state law allowing a woman to obtain an abortion only when it is “necessary to preserve her life” was so vague that it violated the right to due process. It said “a definition requiring certainty of death,” as urged by the government, “would work an invalid abridgment of the woman’s constitutional rights,” including “the woman’s rights to life and to choose whether to bear children.”

The justices reasoned that “the fundamental right of the woman to choose whether to bear children follows from the Supreme Court’s and this court’s repeated acknowledgment of a ‘right of privacy’ or ‘liberty’ in matters related to marriage, family, and sex.” They noted that “none of the parties who have filed briefs in this case have disputed the existence of this fundamental right.”

Florida

A 1980 amendment to Florida’s constitution explicitly protects the “right of privacy,” saying “every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into his private life except as otherwise provided herein.” That right, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in 1989, “is clearly implicated in a woman’s decision of whether or not to continue her pregnancy.”

Emphasizing that the Florida Constitution’s explicit protection of privacy extends further than the provisions on which Roe relied, the justices thought it obvious that Florida’s guarantee encompassed the decision of “whether, when, and how one’s body is to become the vehicle for another human being’s creation.” In fact, they said, “we can conceive of few more personal or private decisions concerning one’s body that one can make in the course of a lifetime.” The court ruled that an abortion regulation can pass muster only if it is “the least intrusive means of furthering [a] compelling state interest.”

That precedent could be at risk. Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, appointed three of the Florida Supreme Court’s seven justices. Justice Alan Lawson, who was appointed by Gov. Rick Scott (now a senator) in 2016, is retiring in August, which means the court will soon have a majority appointed by DeSantis, who this year signed into a law a ban on abortion after 15 weeks. DeSantis has said he also favors a “heartbeat” law that would prohibit abortion after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which typically happens around six weeks into a pregnancy.

The 15-week ban, which is scheduled to take effect on Friday, would affect less than 4 percent of abortions in Florida, according to data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Planned Parenthood argues that the law nevertheless conflicts with the 1989 abortion precedent and the state constitution. John Cooper, a circuit judge in Tallahassee, said on Thursday he would grant the organization’s request for a temporary injunction, although that may not happen soon enough to prevent the ban from taking effect. The law may ultimately be upheld by the Florida Supreme Court, which could modify or reverse its 1989 decision.

Illinois

In 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the argument that a right to abortion is protected by the state constitution’s privacy clause, which says, “The people shall have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and other possessions against unreasonable searches, seizures, invasions of privacy or interceptions of communications by eavesdropping devices or other means.” But the court concluded that “our state due process clause” provides “protections, with respect to abortion, equivalent to those provided by the federal due process clause” as interpreted in Roe.

Kansas

In 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution’s Bill of Rights, which says “all men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” protects “a woman’s right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy.” It said the Bill of Rights “affords protection of the right of personal autonomy, which includes the ability to control one’s own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination.” That right, in turn, “allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life—decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy.”

Massachusetts

In 1981, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed that abortion access is protected by the state constitution’s guarantee of due process. It noted a 1974 decision in which “we held that a pregnant woman’s husband had no right, whether constitutional or at common law, to declaratory and injunctive relief designed to prevent her from securing an abortion.” In that case, “we emphasized the principle of personal autonomy inherent in these cases.” The court also cited its 1977 decision overturning a local ban on abortion clinics, saying the government should take a neutral position on the issue, which “forbids the State to interpose material obstacles to the effectuation of a woman’s counselled decision to terminate her pregnancy during the first trimester.”

Minnesota

In 1995, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that “the right of privacy under the Minnesota Constitution encompasses a woman’s right to decide to terminate her pregnancy.” It said “both parties agree that women have a fundamental right to obtain an abortion before fetal viability under the Minnesota and United States Constitutions.”

Montana

In 1999, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the “right of privacy” guaranteed by the state constitution protects “procreative freedom,” including the right to obtain a pre-viability abortion. It said the Montana Constitution “broadly guarantees each individual the right to make medical judgments affecting her or his bodily integrity and health in partnership with a chosen health care provider free from government interference.”

New Jersey

In 1982, the New Jersey Supreme Court recognized “the fundamental right of a woman to control her body and destiny,” including “the choice to terminate a pregnancy or bear a child.” It cited Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, which says, “All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.” That language, the court said, “protects the right of privacy,” which includes “a woman’s right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to full-term or to undergo an abortion.”

ONGOING LITIGATION

Arizona

A 1901 law, enacted when Arizona was still a territory, bans abortion except when necessary to save a pregnant woman’s life. That law was enjoined after Roe but is still on the books, which has led to considerable confusion about whether it can be enforced.

John Keenan, legal director at the ACLU of Arizona, says “abortion remains legal in Arizona” as long as the pre-Dobbs injunction remains in place, but “providers have been forced to stop medical abortion care to avoid the risk of prosecution.” Gov. Doug Ducey and Attorney General Mark Brnovich, both Republicans, disagree about whether the 1901 ban can be enforced: Brnovich says it can, while Ducey says it can’t.

In March, Ducey signed into law a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of gestation except for medical emergencies. That law, which is similar to the Mississippi ban upheld in Dobbs, takes effect in September. It does not affect the vast majority of abortions: In 2019, according to the CDC’s data, 95 percent of Arizona abortions were performed at 15 weeks or earlier.

The Arizona Constitution includes an explicit privacy clause: “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” In 2002, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that state restrictions on Medicaid coverage of abortions violated the state constitution’s “equal privileges and immunities” clause. But it did not affirm a lower court’s ruling that the privacy clause protects a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy, saying the case was “not about the right to an abortion.”

Kentucky

On Thursday, a state judge issued a restraining order that temporarily blocks enforcement of Kentucky’s “trigger” law, which took effect after Roe was overturned. That law, enacted in 2019, prohibits abortion at any stage of pregnancy. The only exception is for cases where an abortion is “necessary in reasonable medical judgment to prevent the death or substantial risk of death due to a physical condition, or to prevent the serious, permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ of a pregnant woman.”

Jefferson County Circuit Judge Mitch Perry, whose order also covers a six-week ban enacted in 2019, was responding to a lawsuit by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. They argue that the bans violate the state constitution by “infringing on Plaintiffs’ patients’ rights to privacy and self-determination.”

The lawsuit cites Sections 1 and 2 of the Kentucky constitution. Section 1 says “all men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable
rights,” including “the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties” and “the right of seeking and pursuing their safety and happiness.” Section 2 forbids “absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen.”

Perry’s order does not address the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, which Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron says have no legal basis. He promises that “we will do everything possible to continue defending this law and to ensure that unborn life is protected in the Commonwealth.”

Louisiana

Louisiana’s 2006 trigger law makes abortion illegal except when it is “necessary in reasonable medical judgment to prevent the death or substantial risk of death due to a physical condition, or to prevent the serious, permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ of a pregnant woman.” Another trigger law enacted this year added a few more narrow exceptions, which do not include pregnancies caused by rape or incest.

Those laws took effect immediately after Roe‘s reversal. But on Monday, a state judge issued a restraining order that temporarily blocked their enforcement. Orleans Parish Judge Robin M. Giarrusso was responding to a lawsuit by abortion providers who argued that the trigger laws are “unconstitutionally vague.” They say the laws “fail to provide notice of what conduct is prohibited, what exceptions are permitted, and what penalties attach.” Furthermore, they “do not provide notice of when any one of the Trigger Bans, or all of them collectively, are actually in force while simultaneously purporting to be immediately effective” after Roe‘s reversal.

“In a stunning state of affairs, the day Dobbs was issued, state and local officials issued conflicting statements about whether and which trigger laws were actually in effect and thus what conduct—if any—was prohibited,” the plaintiffs said. “Due process requires more.”

A hearing in the case is scheduled for July 8. Citing abortion law historian Mary Ziegler, The Washington Post says “the injunction on Louisiana’s trigger ban will almost certainly be lifted.”

Michigan

In May, responding to a challenge by Planned Parenthood, a state judge temporarily enjoined enforcement of a 1931 law that bans abortion unless it is necessary to “preserve the life” of a pregnant woman. Michigan Court of Claims Judge Elizabeth Gleicher said there was a “strong likelihood” that Planned Parenthood would prevail.

Gleicher thought it was clear that “the right to be let alone—the right to bodily integrity—was understood by the ratfiers of the 1963 Michigan Constitution as a fundamental component of due process.” The right to bodily integrity, she said, includes a right to abortion.

“The link between the right to bodily integrity and the decision whether to bear a child is an obvious one,” Gleicher wrote. “Forced pregnancy, and the concomitant compulsion to endure medical and psychological risks accompanying it, contravene the right to make autonomous medical decisions. If a woman’s right to bodily integrity is to have any real meaning, it must incorporate her right to make decisions about the health events most likely to change the course of her life: pregnancy and childbirth.”

Gleicher’s injunction bars Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, the defendant, from enforcing the abortion ban. It also applies to “anyone acting under defendant’s control and supervision.” Nessel, a Democrat who was not inclined to enforce the 1931 law anyway, says that means “providing abortion care in Michigan cannot be prosecuted.” The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs concurs.

Even the Republican-controlled legislature, which wants the ban to take effect, complains that Gleicher’s injunction bars “the Attorney General and all county prosecutors” from enforcing it. But Kent County Prosecutor Chris Becker and Jackson County Prosecutor Jerard Jarzynka, both Republicans, claim the injunction does not constrain them because they have independent authority, as locally elected officials, to enforce state law.

Texas

A six-week ban, which evaded early judicial intervention by charging private litigants with enforcement, took effect in September. On Tuesday, a state judge issued a restraining order that temporarily blocks enforcement of a 1925 law that bans abortion except to save the mother’s life. Harris County Judge Christine Weems said enforcing that law, which was deemed unconstitutional in Roe, would “inevitably and irreparably chill the provision of abortions in the vital last weeks in which safer abortion care remains available and lawful in Texas.”

Weems was responding to a lawsuit in which abortion providers argue that the pre-Roe ban was “repealed expressly or by implication.” They also argue that “the declaratory judgment in Roe that the Pre-Roe Ban is unconstitutional remains in effect unless and until the judgment is reopened and vacated.” The complaint says allowing enforcement of the 1925 ban would violate the right to due process because “fundamental uncertainty” about the law’s status “authorizes or encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement and fails to provide fair warning of whether its prohibitions exist so that ordinary people may conform their conduct accordingly.”

Texas also has a trigger law, enacted in 2019, that bans abortion except when continuing a pregnancy poses a risk of death or “substantial impairment of a major bodily function.” That law is supposed to take effect 30 days after Roe‘s reversal. Attorney General Ken Paxton says the countdown does not start until the Supreme Court issues its judgment (as opposed to its opinion) in Dobbs, which means the ban won’t take effect until about two months from now.

Utah

Utah’s 2020 trigger law allows abortion when it is necessary to save the mother’s life or avoid “a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of major bodily function.” The law also includes exceptions for cases involving rape, incest, or a fetus with a “uniformly diagnosable” and “uniformly lethal” defect or a “severe brain abnormality” resulting in a “mentally vegetative state.” Otherwise, abortion is prohibited.

On Monday, a state judge in Salt Lake City issued a restraining order that temporarily blocks enforcement of Utah’s trigger law. Third District Judge Andrew Stone said the law “upsets the longstanding status quo on which Utah women and their families have relied for at least five decades.” If the ban is enforced, he said, it “will force many Utahns to continue carrying a pregnancy that they have decided to end, with all of the physical, emotional, and financial costs that entails.”

Stone was responding to a lawsuit in which Planned Parenthood and the ACLU argue that the abortion ban violates several rights guaranteed by the state constitution. They say the Utah Supreme Court has recognized that the state constitution protects “the rights inherent in family relationships,” which the ban violates because it “prevents individuals from making fundamental decisions about how to arrange their family relationships.”

The lawsuit also argues that the trigger law violates the right to equal protection because it “disproportionately limits women’s bodily autonomy and liberty”; the “substantive due process right to bodily integrity,” which is “violated whenever one’s health and safety is imperiled without one’s consent”; “the prohibition on involuntary servitude” by “forc[ing] people who become pregnant to undertake the mental and physical labor of pregnancy and childbirth against their will”; and “the right to privacy,” which the Utah Supreme Court has said includes “those aspects of an individual’s activities and manner of living that would generally be regarded as being of such personal and private nature as to belong to himself and to be of no proper concern to others.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The post Without <i>Roe v. Wade</i>, Litigants Look to State Constitutions for Protection of Abortion Rights appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/aBR9Qzn
via IFTTT

Without Roe v. Wade, Litigants Look to State Constitutions for Protection of Abortion Rights


Abortion-rights supporters demonstrate outside the U.S. Supreme Court on June 30, 2022.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion. But several state supreme courts have rejected abortion bans as inconsistent with state constitutional provisions, and current litigation over new restrictions seeks to establish more such precedents. Some lawsuits do not claim constitutional protection for abortion rights but instead seek to delay implementation of “trigger” bans designed to take effect after the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 precedent that the Supreme Court repudiated in Dobbs. Here is a rundown of where things stand.

PRE-DOBBS DECISIONS

Alaska

In 1997, the Alaska Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state constitution “protects reproductive autonomy, including the right to abortion.” The court cited Article I, Section 22 of the Alaska Constitution, which was adopted in 1972 and says, “The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed.”

The justices concluded that “a woman’s control of her body, and the choice whether or when to bear children, involves the kind of decision-making that is “necessary for…civilized life and ordered liberty.” They added that “our prior decisions support the further conclusion that the right to an abortion is the kind of fundamental right and privilege encompassed within the intention and spirit of Alaska’s constitutional language.”

California

In 1969, four years before Roe established a constitutional right to abortion, the California Supreme Court ruled that a state law allowing a woman to obtain an abortion only when it is “necessary to preserve her life” was so vague that it violated the right to due process. It said “a definition requiring certainty of death,” as urged by the government, “would work an invalid abridgment of the woman’s constitutional rights,” including “the woman’s rights to life and to choose whether to bear children.”

The justices reasoned that “the fundamental right of the woman to choose whether to bear children follows from the Supreme Court’s and this court’s repeated acknowledgment of a ‘right of privacy’ or ‘liberty’ in matters related to marriage, family, and sex.” They noted that “none of the parties who have filed briefs in this case have disputed the existence of this fundamental right.”

Florida

A 1980 amendment to Florida’s constitution explicitly protects the “right of privacy,” saying “every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into his private life except as otherwise provided herein.” That right, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in 1989, “is clearly implicated in a woman’s decision of whether or not to continue her pregnancy.”

Emphasizing that the Florida Constitution’s explicit protection of privacy extends further than the provisions on which Roe relied, the justices thought it obvious that Florida’s guarantee encompassed the decision of “whether, when, and how one’s body is to become the vehicle for another human being’s creation.” In fact, they said, “we can conceive of few more personal or private decisions concerning one’s body that one can make in the course of a lifetime.” The court ruled that an abortion regulation can pass muster only if it is “the least intrusive means of furthering [a] compelling state interest.”

That precedent could be at risk. Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, appointed three of the Florida Supreme Court’s seven justices. Justice Alan Lawson, who was appointed by Gov. Rick Scott (now a senator) in 2016, is retiring in August, which means the court will soon have a majority appointed by DeSantis, who this year signed into a law a ban on abortion after 15 weeks. DeSantis has said he also favors a “heartbeat” law that would prohibit abortion after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which typically happens around six weeks into a pregnancy.

The 15-week ban, which is scheduled to take effect on Friday, would affect less than 4 percent of abortions in Florida, according to data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Planned Parenthood argues that the law nevertheless conflicts with the 1989 abortion precedent and the state constitution. John Cooper, a circuit judge in Tallahassee, said on Thursday he would grant the organization’s request for a temporary injunction, although that may not happen soon enough to prevent the ban from taking effect. The law may ultimately be upheld by the Florida Supreme Court, which could modify or reverse its 1989 decision.

Illinois

In 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the argument that a right to abortion is protected by the state constitution’s privacy clause, which says, “The people shall have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and other possessions against unreasonable searches, seizures, invasions of privacy or interceptions of communications by eavesdropping devices or other means.” But the court concluded that “our state due process clause” provides “protections, with respect to abortion, equivalent to those provided by the federal due process clause” as interpreted in Roe.

Kansas

In 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution’s Bill of Rights, which says “all men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” protects “a woman’s right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy.” It said the Bill of Rights “affords protection of the right of personal autonomy, which includes the ability to control one’s own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination.” That right, in turn, “allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life—decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy.”

Massachusetts

In 1981, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed that abortion access is protected by the state constitution’s guarantee of due process. It noted a 1974 decision in which “we held that a pregnant woman’s husband had no right, whether constitutional or at common law, to declaratory and injunctive relief designed to prevent her from securing an abortion.” In that case, “we emphasized the principle of personal autonomy inherent in these cases.” The court also cited its 1977 decision overturning a local ban on abortion clinics, saying the government should take a neutral position on the issue, which “forbids the State to interpose material obstacles to the effectuation of a woman’s counselled decision to terminate her pregnancy during the first trimester.”

Minnesota

In 1995, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that “the right of privacy under the Minnesota Constitution encompasses a woman’s right to decide to terminate her pregnancy.” It said “both parties agree that women have a fundamental right to obtain an abortion before fetal viability under the Minnesota and United States Constitutions.”

Montana

In 1999, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the “right of privacy” guaranteed by the state constitution protects “procreative freedom,” including the right to obtain a pre-viability abortion. It said the Montana Constitution “broadly guarantees each individual the right to make medical judgments affecting her or his bodily integrity and health in partnership with a chosen health care provider free from government interference.”

New Jersey

In 1982, the New Jersey Supreme Court recognized “the fundamental right of a woman to control her body and destiny,” including “the choice to terminate a pregnancy or bear a child.” It cited Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, which says, “All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.” That language, the court said, “protects the right of privacy,” which includes “a woman’s right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to full-term or to undergo an abortion.”

ONGOING LITIGATION

Arizona

A 1901 law, enacted when Arizona was still a territory, bans abortion except when necessary to save a pregnant woman’s life. That law was enjoined after Roe but is still on the books, which has led to considerable confusion about whether it can be enforced.

John Keenan, legal director at the ACLU of Arizona, says “abortion remains legal in Arizona” as long as the pre-Dobbs injunction remains in place, but “providers have been forced to stop medical abortion care to avoid the risk of prosecution.” Gov. Doug Ducey and Attorney General Mark Brnovich, both Republicans, disagree about whether the 1901 ban can be enforced: Brnovich says it can, while Ducey says it can’t.

In March, Ducey signed into law a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of gestation except for medical emergencies. That law, which is similar to the Mississippi ban upheld in Dobbs, takes effect in September. It does not affect the vast majority of abortions: In 2019, according to the CDC’s data, 95 percent of Arizona abortions were performed at 15 weeks or earlier.

The Arizona Constitution includes an explicit privacy clause: “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” In 2002, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that state restrictions on Medicaid coverage of abortions violated the state constitution’s “equal privileges and immunities” clause. But it did not affirm a lower court’s ruling that the privacy clause protects a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy, saying the case was “not about the right to an abortion.”

Kentucky

On Thursday, a state judge issued a restraining order that temporarily blocks enforcement of Kentucky’s “trigger” law, which took effect after Roe was overturned. That law, enacted in 2019, prohibits abortion at any stage of pregnancy. The only exception is for cases where an abortion is “necessary in reasonable medical judgment to prevent the death or substantial risk of death due to a physical condition, or to prevent the serious, permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ of a pregnant woman.”

Jefferson County Circuit Judge Mitch Perry, whose order also covers a six-week ban enacted in 2019, was responding to a lawsuit by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. They argue that the bans violate the state constitution by “infringing on Plaintiffs’ patients’ rights to privacy and self-determination.”

The lawsuit cites Sections 1 and 2 of the Kentucky constitution. Section 1 says “all men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable
rights,” including “the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties” and “the right of seeking and pursuing their safety and happiness.” Section 2 forbids “absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen.”

Perry’s order does not address the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, which Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron says have no legal basis. He promises that “we will do everything possible to continue defending this law and to ensure that unborn life is protected in the Commonwealth.”

Louisiana

Louisiana’s 2006 trigger law makes abortion illegal except when it is “necessary in reasonable medical judgment to prevent the death or substantial risk of death due to a physical condition, or to prevent the serious, permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ of a pregnant woman.” Another trigger law enacted this year added a few more narrow exceptions, which do not include pregnancies caused by rape or incest.

Those laws took effect immediately after Roe‘s reversal. But on Monday, a state judge issued a restraining order that temporarily blocked their enforcement. Orleans Parish Judge Robin M. Giarrusso was responding to a lawsuit by abortion providers who argued that the trigger laws are “unconstitutionally vague.” They say the laws “fail to provide notice of what conduct is prohibited, what exceptions are permitted, and what penalties attach.” Furthermore, they “do not provide notice of when any one of the Trigger Bans, or all of them collectively, are actually in force while simultaneously purporting to be immediately effective” after Roe‘s reversal.

“In a stunning state of affairs, the day Dobbs was issued, state and local officials issued conflicting statements about whether and which trigger laws were actually in effect and thus what conduct—if any—was prohibited,” the plaintiffs said. “Due process requires more.”

A hearing in the case is scheduled for July 8. Citing abortion law historian Mary Ziegler, The Washington Post says “the injunction on Louisiana’s trigger ban will almost certainly be lifted.”

Michigan

In May, responding to a challenge by Planned Parenthood, a state judge temporarily enjoined enforcement of a 1931 law that bans abortion unless it is necessary to “preserve the life” of a pregnant woman. Michigan Court of Claims Judge Elizabeth Gleicher said there was a “strong likelihood” that Planned Parenthood would prevail.

Gleicher thought it was clear that “the right to be let alone—the right to bodily integrity—was understood by the ratfiers of the 1963 Michigan Constitution as a fundamental component of due process.” The right to bodily integrity, she said, includes a right to abortion.

“The link between the right to bodily integrity and the decision whether to bear a child is an obvious one,” Gleicher wrote. “Forced pregnancy, and the concomitant compulsion to endure medical and psychological risks accompanying it, contravene the right to make autonomous medical decisions. If a woman’s right to bodily integrity is to have any real meaning, it must incorporate her right to make decisions about the health events most likely to change the course of her life: pregnancy and childbirth.”

Gleicher’s injunction bars Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, the defendant, from enforcing the abortion ban. It also applies to “anyone acting under defendant’s control and supervision.” Nessel, a Democrat who was not inclined to enforce the 1931 law anyway, says that means “providing abortion care in Michigan cannot be prosecuted.” The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs concurs.

Even the Republican-controlled legislature, which wants the ban to take effect, complains that Gleicher’s injunction bars “the Attorney General and all county prosecutors” from enforcing it. But Kent County Prosecutor Chris Becker and Jackson County Prosecutor Jerard Jarzynka, both Republicans, claim the injunction does not constrain them because they have independent authority, as locally elected officials, to enforce state law.

Texas

A six-week ban, which evaded early judicial intervention by charging private litigants with enforcement, took effect in September. On Tuesday, a state judge issued a restraining order that temporarily blocks enforcement of a 1925 law that bans abortion except to save the mother’s life. Harris County Judge Christine Weems said enforcing that law, which was deemed unconstitutional in Roe, would “inevitably and irreparably chill the provision of abortions in the vital last weeks in which safer abortion care remains available and lawful in Texas.”

Weems was responding to a lawsuit in which abortion providers argue that the pre-Roe ban was “repealed expressly or by implication.” They also argue that “the declaratory judgment in Roe that the Pre-Roe Ban is unconstitutional remains in effect unless and until the judgment is reopened and vacated.” The complaint says allowing enforcement of the 1925 ban would violate the right to due process because “fundamental uncertainty” about the law’s status “authorizes or encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement and fails to provide fair warning of whether its prohibitions exist so that ordinary people may conform their conduct accordingly.”

Texas also has a trigger law, enacted in 2019, that bans abortion except when continuing a pregnancy poses a risk of death or “substantial impairment of a major bodily function.” That law is supposed to take effect 30 days after Roe‘s reversal. Attorney General Ken Paxton says the countdown does not start until the Supreme Court issues its judgment (as opposed to its opinion) in Dobbs, which means the ban won’t take effect until about two months from now.

Utah

Utah’s 2020 trigger law allows abortion when it is necessary to save the mother’s life or avoid “a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of major bodily function.” The law also includes exceptions for cases involving rape, incest, or a fetus with a “uniformly diagnosable” and “uniformly lethal” defect or a “severe brain abnormality” resulting in a “mentally vegetative state.” Otherwise, abortion is prohibited.

On Monday, a state judge in Salt Lake City issued a restraining order that temporarily blocks enforcement of Utah’s trigger law. Third District Judge Andrew Stone said the law “upsets the longstanding status quo on which Utah women and their families have relied for at least five decades.” If the ban is enforced, he said, it “will force many Utahns to continue carrying a pregnancy that they have decided to end, with all of the physical, emotional, and financial costs that entails.”

Stone was responding to a lawsuit in which Planned Parenthood and the ACLU argue that the abortion ban violates several rights guaranteed by the state constitution. They say the Utah Supreme Court has recognized that the state constitution protects “the rights inherent in family relationships,” which the ban violates because it “prevents individuals from making fundamental decisions about how to arrange their family relationships.”

The lawsuit also argues that the trigger law violates the right to equal protection because it “disproportionately limits women’s bodily autonomy and liberty”; the “substantive due process right to bodily integrity,” which is “violated whenever one’s health and safety is imperiled without one’s consent”; “the prohibition on involuntary servitude” by “forc[ing] people who become pregnant to undertake the mental and physical labor of pregnancy and childbirth against their will”; and “the right to privacy,” which the Utah Supreme Court has said includes “those aspects of an individual’s activities and manner of living that would generally be regarded as being of such personal and private nature as to belong to himself and to be of no proper concern to others.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The post Without <i>Roe v. Wade</i>, Litigants Look to State Constitutions for Protection of Abortion Rights appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/aBR9Qzn
via IFTTT

Florida Judge Says Governor’s “Stop Woke Act” Can Go Forward

Florida Judge Says Governor’s “Stop Woke Act” Can Go Forward

Authored by Jannis Falkenstern via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Florida Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker ruled on June 27 that the state can enforce the “Stop Woke Act”—but did not rule on its constitutionality, nor a piece affecting colleges and universities.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis addresses the media in Miami, in April 2022. (Courtesy, The Florida Governor’s Office)

The judge, who was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2012 and became chief justice in 2018, ruled that HB 7—or what Gov. Ron DeSantis branded as the “Stop Woke Act”—can move forward and regulate how race can be taught in the classroom and the workplace.

The new law is part of DeSantis’ education agenda that targets ties to Critical Race Theory (CRT) in the state school system as well as corporate training at companies surrounding “white privilege.”

The governor’s press secretary Christina Pushaw said DeSantis is not “planning to comment on the ruling,” but she said, “generally … we are confident that this law will ultimately survive all legal challenges and protect Floridians from the harmful effects of discriminatory woke ideology.”

In past press conferences DeSantis has said he did not want children to be taught now to “hate one another.”

The ruling by Walker gives DeSantis a win, as the judge has frequently ruled against him, allowing the law to move forward—but made it clear that he was not ruling on the constitutionality of the law nor was his decision an endorsement of the law.

This court is not determining whether the challenged regulations are constitutional, morally correct, or good policy,” Walker wrote in his ruling. “And this order should not be interpreted as endorsing the [legislation] or the related Board of Education regulation.”

In March, lawmakers passed HB 7 after strong debate on both house floors.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/30/2022 – 18:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/mqoRNdA Tyler Durden

California Just Leaked The Name, Address Of Every Concealed Carry Licensee In The State

California Just Leaked The Name, Address Of Every Concealed Carry Licensee In The State

The California government has leaked an enormous volume of personal data on the state’s gun owners—including the name and address of every concealed carry permit holder in the stateThe data was posted to the internet on Monday—when the California Department of Justice launched its “2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal.”

The readily-downloadable information included “names, birthdays, addresses, ages, the purchase date and type of firearm permit they possessed, and their Criminal Identification Index numbers, which are used to track state and federal criminal records,” according to GizmodoABC30 reports that gender and driver’s license numbers were also exposed. 

The state’s assault weapon registry and Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) data were also affected, but the DOJ has not yet determined to what extent associated personal data was compromised. 

The personal data was available for downloading with the click of a button on the site’s mapping feature, according to The Reload. The portal was accessible from Monday afternoon until sometime Tuesday morning. 

The breach potentially opened a Pandora’s box of harms for law-abiding Californians who acquired firearms and permits for self-protection. Those perils extend far beyond merely being ostracized by liberal coworkers and neighbors. For example: 

  • A list of gun owners and their addresses is a treasure map for thieves seeking to steal firearms
  • Knowledge of an individual’s gun ownership can be used against them via the filing of spurious “red flag” complaints pursuant to the state’s Gun Violence Restraining Order system
  • Someone who obtained a firearm for protection from an abusive partner or ex-partner could be endangered if knowledge of that weapon acquisition sends the partner into a rage 

The leaked data identified who among the concealed carry permit holders is a police officer or a judge. The Reload studied the posted data for Los Angeles County and found 244 judge permits complete with addresses and other personal data. Another 2,891 ordinary concealed carry permit-holders in the county were also exposed. 

California issued 40,000 concealed carry permits in 2021, well off the 2016 peak of 100,000. 

In light of the state’s dangerous mass violation of gun owners’ privacy, Monday’s press release promoting the portal’s debut now reads like dark comedy. In it, state attorney general Rob Bonta said, “Transparency is key to increasing public trust between law enforcement and the communities we serve…Today’s announcement puts power and information into the hands of our communities.”

After the leak was discovered, Bonta said, “This unauthorized release of personal information is unacceptable and falls far short of my expectations for this department.” As this article is written, those attempting to access the portal are presented with a notice: “Website temporarily unavailable. Please try again in a few minutes.”

California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) president Chuck Michel told The Reload that “vindictive sore loser bureaucrats have endangered people’s lives and invited conflict by illegally releasing confidential private information. CRPA is working with several legislators and sheriffs to determine the extent of the damage caused by DOJ’s doxing of law abiding gun owners. Litigation is likely.” 

    The portal is meant to provide data on dealer record of sales, Gun Violence Restraining Orders, concealed carry permits, firearms safety certificates, “assault weapons,” and a roster of “certified handguns.”  The mass data dump was discovered by two California sheriffs who were using the new dashboard.  

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 06/30/2022 – 18:10

    via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/9CrWNGw Tyler Durden

    States Need To Avoid ‘Cures’ That Can Make Inflation Worse

    States Need To Avoid ‘Cures’ That Can Make Inflation Worse

    Authored by Regina M. Egea and Danielle Zanzalari via RealClearPolicy.com,

    Across the United States, state governments are awash in cash. In a sharp contrast, American taxpayers are enduring a rate of inflation unseen in four decades, with the costs of everything from food to gasoline at record highs.

    In our home state of New Jersey, Trenton is looking at an unprecedented surplus of $8 billion through a combination of increased tax revenue, federal pandemic aid and borrowing.

    A natural impulse among residents and policymakers is to offer residents “relief” in the form of rebate checks.

    The reality is that relying exclusively on rebates or direct cash transfers to individuals will only lead to more inflation as this puts more money in consumers’ hands exacerbating the same problem as today – too many dollars chasing too few goods.

    Rather, it is prudent that states focus on long-term investment and responsible budgeting to ensure economic growth now and in the future. This is especially important in high tax, big spending states due to the greater flexibility in work arrangements that have exposed the reality that wealth is mobile.

    With more residents fleeing high tax states to low tax states, states will need to reevaluate their tax and regulatory climate to stay competitive. 

    Regulation can raise the costs for consumers and slow job growth. A series of studies shows the regulation raises prices and worsens poverty.

    Working with local governments to revisit restrictive laws that contribute to higher housing prices, such as building height restrictions and zoning rules, as well as removing unnecessary restrictions on business operations will lead to more economic growth.

    Another way states can aid productivity and long-term economic growth with their temporary budget surplus, is to fund training programs for middle-skilled jobs.

    Nearly every industry has experienced labor shortages and that reality is especially acute in trades like auto, refrigeration, HVAC, electrical, welding, and manufacturing.

    States can invest in these skills through high school and vocational school programs. With college borrowing costs astronomically high, this encourages individuals to pursue careers that are lucrative and budget friendly, as well as fill the over 75,000 job openings that our state of New Jersey is projected to need in just a few years.

    To further long-term economic growth many states should also concentrate on fixing their unfunded pension liabilities for public employees. This impacts red and blue states alike, with massive liabilities in California ($1.53 trillion), Illinois ($533.72 billion), Texas ($529.70 billion), New York ($508.70 billion) and Ohio ($429.53 billion). Here in New Jersey, our liability is nearly $40,000 for every resident of the state, which can dramatically deter future growth. Beyond using some of states’ budget surplus to shore up pension liabilities, states should move public employees to defined contribution plans, which are used by more than 100 million Americans. These are found to have better investment returns than state-wide pension plans and cost taxpayers less.

    Our final recommendation is perhaps our most important: Save for a rainy day. If the U.S. economy enters into a recession, this will mean fewer jobs and less tax revenue for states. To prepare for the future when states again face a budget shortfall, which may be sooner than we think, states should follow best practices of reserving 10% of their budget in a rainy day fund, to sustain essential programs should a downturn occur in the future.

    As state leaders consider their budgets, they should focus on long-term economic growth initiatives. Proposals like funding middle-skilled job trainings ensure workers are ready for the next decade, whereas eliminating unnecessary regulations and focusing on pro-growth tax reforms encourages residents to build businesses and create jobs. Lastly, taking care of state finances by properly funding state employees’ retirement plans and saving for a rainy day will ensure that no state is left behind in the next economic downturn.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 06/30/2022 – 17:50

    via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/dRNM8XC Tyler Durden

    Daily Briefing: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Stagflation?

    Daily Briefing: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Stagflation?

    Stocks are sliding and bonds are rallying, as investors react to accumulating evidence that inflation will persist even though the economy is slowing down. There’s a word for that kind of scenario: stagflation. “The Fed is facing one of the worst predicaments of its existence,” tweeted Tavi Costa. “The US economy simply cannot handle the Fed’s continued monetary tightening.” Costa, a partner and portfolio manager at Crescat Capital, joins Real Vision’s Ash Bennington to talk about the confluence of three macro extremes. We also hear from Hari Krishnan about how there may not be a solution for the Federal Reserve’s dilemma. Want to submit questions? Drop them right here on the Exchange: https://rvtv.io/3AklJeO. Watch the full conversation featuring Hari Krishnan and Ash Bennington here: https://rvtv.io/3QUWOnVhttps://rvtv.io/3xYSJG.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 06/30/2022 – 14:35

    via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/1YekLd7 Tyler Durden

    The Fed Is Quietly Handing Out $250 Million To A Handful Of Happy Recipients Every Single Day

    The Fed Is Quietly Handing Out $250 Million To A Handful Of Happy Recipients Every Single Day

    The Fed’s QE may be over, and QT may be just starting (it won’t last long), but don’t think the Fed free money giveaway is ending any time soon. In fact, for a handful of happy, mostly anonymous counterparties, the real free-money bonanza has just begun!

    Case in point: the Fed’s reverse repo facility. While one can debate for hours why there is a record $2.330 trillion in cash parked at the Fed’s overnight facility and what it means for systemic plumbing problems, the fact is that there is a record $2.33 trillion in cash parked at the Fed’s overnight facility, doing nothing.

    Well not nothing: it was nothing when rates were zero, but at 1.55% which is the current rate, that $2.33 trillion is a golden goose for the 108 counterparties that were parking cash at the facility, a mixture of money market funds, banks, GSEs and various other financial intermediaries.

    How big of a Golden Goose? The chart below shows the payment in interest that the Fed makes day on this record $2.33 trillion in funds: as of today it amounts to just over $100 million every single day! That’s right, more than $100 million in interest payments on funds parked with the Fed, which is by definition the world’s only risk-free counterparty!

    But wait, there’s more!

    Remember excess reserves? Well, technically excess reserves ended in March 2020 when the Fed reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero, thus converting the trillions in reserves held at the Fed from “excess reserves: to plain old “reserves” and which as of today amount to $3.13 trillion.

    Whatever they are called now, however, reserves parked at the Fed (which is technically an incorrect phrase since the reserves are created by the Fed) also collect interest, and as of today, the Fed’s Interest on (Excess) Reserves rate, or IOER, is 1.65%. This translates into $141 million in daily interest payments every single day to the various banks (mostly foreign) whose reserves are parked at the Fed!

    Combining the two we get nearly a quarter billion, or to be precise $242 million and rising, in interest payments by the Fed – this is money which is printed into existence – every single day.

    All of the above is with the Fed Funds rate at 1.75%. As a reminder, the Fed hopes to keep hiking at least another 175bps (or more) in the next 6 months, which will push the rate to 3.50% and will mean that the Fed will be paying half a billion in interest every single day to a handful of mostly unknown counterparties every day, money which for said counterparties is also known as (riskless) profit and which is only the result of the Fed’s previous money printing.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 06/30/2022 – 17:30

    via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/GV2kFiR Tyler Durden