Month: June 2021

Beijing is poised to take an unprecedented step in its latest efforts to combat US and Western sanctions which have recently been ratcheted up particularly surrounding the Uyghur issue in Xinjiang. A draft law is now being examined by the National People’s Congress (NCP) which would shield Chinese entities and institutions from “the unilateral and discriminatory measures imposed by foreign countries” and ultimately the “long arm jurisdiction” of the United States, according to state media. 

Called the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, a vote by lawmakers is expected soon after a series of reviews by committees under the NPC, it will allow or possibly even require quick retaliatory measures in instances a foreign country targets a Chinese company, entity or individual with punitive legal measures – ensuring a greater level of tit-for-tat escalation. In short it would mean the power of the Chinese government to sanction all who comply with US/EU sanctions by drawing a bright red line, forcing entities to choose whether to comply to Washington’s side or Beijing’s side. Or in even simpler terms, it’s something which the United States has already long practiced – for example in the case of far-reaching Iran sanctions which blacklisted European or other companies which had dealings with the Islamic Republic.

According to an expert quoted by the state-run Global Times, the law “will deter foreign governments, notably the US and the EU, from resorting to long-arm jurisdiction,…if Chinese entities are hit with unjustified sanctions, the proposed law is supposed to crystallize actionable countermeasures against the foreign governments and institutions…expecting the legal effort to make up for losses that Chinese entities would suffer.“

It’s intended to further boost Beijing’s legal firepower in hitting back – again which practically translates to any future measures out of the US or EU like to be automatically met with escalation in terms of trade disruptions or immediate measures targeting US or Western companies wishing to do business in China. 

“Legal experts said that speeding up legislation in foreign-related fields is necessary as it’s important to use legal measures to safeguard the legitimate rights of Chinese institutions, enterprises and citizens,” GT comments further. “Especially in recent years, the US government has been imposing sanctions on some Chinese entities such as high-tech firms Huawei and ZTE for so-called national security risks, and sanctioned a number of senior Chinese officials under the US’ so-called Xinjiang and Hong Kong bills last year.”

And here’s more from the state publication: 

While the EU has a regulation to protect against the effects of the extraterritorial application of legislation adopted by a third country and the US owns a large number of “legal ammunition” in terms of long-arm jurisdiction, China lacks relevant laws in response to the external legal weapons, Qi Kai, an associate professor of the Institute of Globalization and Global Issues at China University of Political Science and Law, told the Global Times on Monday. 

If passed, China could sanction those who comply with US/EU sanctions. Companies and individuals would need to choose between whether to follow US/EU law or that of China. https://t.co/ba622uYei6

— Emily Feng 冯哲芸 (@EmilyZFeng) June 8, 2021

Chinese commentators are treating it as a necessary ‘deterrence’ measure, but Rabobank details… 

The example of the Australian government’s decision to tear up Victoria’s Belt and Road agreements with China is given as a “wake-up call” for China to “broaden the extraterritorial reach of its own legislation.” In other words, the proposed law would have allowed China to impose countermeasures on Australia, or demand compensation, for Canberra following Australian federal law within its own territory – because it harmed Chinese interests. Of course, the US, and now EU and UK –and Hong Kong– extend their legal remits outside their geographical territory. Now China is going to join in – and in the opposite direction to the West’s legal moves.  This potentially leaves Western firms damned-if-they-do and damned-if-they-don’t, which is a wake-up call for those who haven’t heard any of the alarm bells so far. It’s also another factor likely to play into supply-chains and inflation over time, even if mentioning it is as popular as Invermectin.

* * *

In particular Chinese media has highlighted the West’s using stories of Xinjiang-related human rights abuse to “spread rumors and suppress China.”

The timing of the new legislation’s likely near-future passage will be interesting, given that as it’s being mulled over the G-7 summit will be underway in the UK (starting Friday), where it’s expected that Joe Biden and other world leaders representing the US, UK, Canada, Japan, Germany, France and Italy – and other guess countries – will produce a statement that’s heavily critical of China especially on the human rights front.

Authored by Maryellen Fullerton via SCOTUSblog.com,

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday that noncitizens who have been granted temporary humanitarian relief from deportation cannot use the process known as “adjustment of status” to obtain lawful permanent residency in the United States without leaving the country.

The court ruled in Sanchez v. Mayorkas that adjustment of status is reserved for those who were inspected at the border and admitted to the United States by an immigration officer, thus disqualifying the majority of those granted Temporary Protected Status.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion for the court.

Jose Sanchez and Sonia Gonzalez came to the United States from El Salvador without authorization in the 1990s. The U.S. government granted them temporary protection in 2001 when the United States designated El Salvador as part of the TPS program in the wake of devastating earthquakes in that country. Under the TPS program, foreign nationals living in the United States are permitted to remain here due to unsafe conditions in their home countries. 

Sanchez and Gonzalez have maintained TPS status for 20 years, during which Sanchez’s employer filed an immigration-visa petition for Sanchez as a skilled worker. Immigration officials approved this petition, authorizing Sanchez to be admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. They simultaneously approved Gonzalez, his wife, for admission as a lawful permanent resident.

The government, however, denied the couple’s subsequent application to use the adjustment-of-status process in order to transition from temporary to permanent residency without leaving the United States. Immigration officials ruled that the couple’s original unauthorized entry disqualified them from adjustment of status.

The government relied on the text of Immigration and Nationality Act Section 1255(a), which restricts the in-country adjustment-of-status process to noncitizens who were “inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States.” 

Sanchez and Gonzalez argued that the TPS statute includes a provision making TPS holders eligible for adjustment of status even if they had not been inspected and admitted or paroled when they originally entered the United States. Specifically, Section 1254a(f)(4) states that “for purposes of adjustment of status under Section 1255 …, the [TPS holder] shall be considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant.” They asserted that the phrase “considered as being in … lawful status” makes the grant of TPS the equivalent of being inspected and admitted as a lawful nonimmigrant. Sanchez and Gonzalez argued the detailed vetting that accompanies applicants for TPS is equivalent to the vetting that accompanies inspection and admission at a port of entry.

The court sided with the government and rejected the interpretation advanced by Sanchez and Gonzalez.

“Section 1255 generally requires a lawful admission before a person can obtain LPR status,” Kagan wrote.

“Sanchez was not lawfully admitted, and his TPS does not alter that fact. He therefore cannot become a permanent resident of this country.”

Cases: Sanchez v. Mayorkas

With the latest heat wave subsiding in the northeastern U.S., after several days of dangerously high temperatures above 90 degrees, power prices skyrocketed as tens of millions turned down their thermostats. 

According to Bloomberg, electricity prices in New England tripled on Monday from a year ago. Since the weekend, a heat wave blanketed the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast but will subside by midweek. 

Gary Cunningham, director of market research at Tradition Energy, said energy demands are way “above normal” for this time of year because of increasing air-conditioning use. New England’s grid operator could reach its summer peak in June instead of August, typically the hottest part of summer.

Monday’s highs were 90-95 degrees in the Baltimore–Washington metropolitan area to New York City to Boston. 

Grid operator PJM Interconnection LLC, a regional transmission organization serving all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, issued a hot weather alert Monday. PJM requested owners of transmission lines and power plants to delay maintenance. 

On-peak electricity prices for Bloomingdale, Massachusetts, energy prices per megawatt-hour spiked on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. 

Peak energy prices for New York City also spiked. 

The heat wave is expected to dissipate by mid-week as Mid-Atlantic and Northeast temperatures will be around average or slightly below normal as a cold front rolls in through the weekend. 

 

By Jeffrey Jones of Gallup

Seventy-six percent of U.S. adults say they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 or plan to be, a number that has been stable over the past three months but is higher than in late 2020 and early 2021.

As of the May 18-23 survey, 60% of U.S. adults report they have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, 4% have been partially vaccinated, 12% plan to be vaccinated and 24% do not plan to be vaccinated.

Among those not planning to be vaccinated, 78% say they are unlikely to reconsider their plans, including 51% who say they are “not likely at all” to change their mind and get vaccinated. That leaves one in five vaccine-reluctant adults open to reconsidering, with 2% saying they are very likely and 19% saying they are somewhat likely to change their mind and get vaccinated — equivalent to 5% of all U.S. adults.

Last week, the Biden administration announced plans to increase efforts to achieve its goal of having 70% of adults at least partially vaccinated by the Fourth of July holiday. With 64% already vaccinated, that goal seems within reach if half of the 12% planning to get vaccinated follow through, even if none of those not planning to get vaccinated change their mind. The administration’s efforts include outreach to citizens, offers of free childcare, and incentives such as free air travel and free sports tickets.

States are also trying creative approaches to encourage those who are reluctant to get vaccinated, including offering lottery prizes of varying amounts, savings bonds, free amusement park tickets and free hunting and fishing licenses.

The brewer Anheuser-Busch is offering Americans free beer if the nation meets Biden’s goal.

Gallup’s data suggest the ceiling on vaccination could be about 80% of U.S. adults. That would include the 76% who are already vaccinated or plan to be plus the 5% who do not plan to get vaccinated but say they are at least somewhat likely to change their mind.

A steady 53% of U.S. adults say they are worried about people choosing not to get vaccinated, including 25% who are very worried. It is now the public’s greatest worry about the virus by a wide margin, surpassing concerns about lack of social distancing in their area (27%), availability of local hospital resources and supplies (11%), and availability of coronavirus tests in their area (5%),

Reasons for Not Getting Vaccinated Vary

Gallup’s March and April COVID-19 surveys found no dominant reason among vaccine-reluctant individuals for their intention not to get vaccinated. The most common reasons given were wanting to confirm the vaccine was safe (23%) and a belief they would not get seriously ill from the virus (20%). Slightly fewer expressed concerns about the timeline for developing the vaccine (16%) or mistrust of vaccines in general (16%). Ten percent said they already have immunity because they have had COVID-19, while 10% cite allergies or concern about allergies as the reason they do not plan to get vaccinated.

The one in four vaccine-reluctant adults are not distributed equally across major demographic groups:

• About half of Republicans, 46%, compared with 31% of independents and 6% of Democrats, do not plan to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

• Americans without a college degree are much more likely than college graduates to be vaccine-hesitant, 31% to 12%.

• Vaccine hesitancy is more common among middle-aged Americans (33% of those between the ages of 35 and 54) than among younger (22%) and older Americans (20%).

Bottom Line

Widespread COVID-19 vaccination has undoubtedly been a major reason behind the steep decline in infections and deaths from the disease in the U.S. in recent months. The rate of vaccinations has slowed down considerably in recent weeks, now that most Americans who wanted to get vaccinated have done so. Further increasing the proportion of vaccinated adults in the population will be a challenge, as the remaining vaccine-willing population may be less eager to get their shots. They may also face practical or logistical challenges to getting vaccinated, something vaccine administrators are attempting to overcome by offering walk-in appointments at pharmacies and health centers, on-site vaccination for employees at work sites, travelers at airports, and in churches. Incentives may also encourage those who are less motivated to get the vaccine to do so.

However, these efforts seem unlikely to convince the nearly one in five Americans who do not plan to get vaccinated and say they are unlikely to change their mind. Still, having somewhere between 65% and 80% of the public vaccinated, in addition to the unvaccinated Americans who have had and recovered from COVID-19, may be enough to ensure that Americans can largely return to their pre-pandemic lives without fear of getting sick or contributing to further spread of the disease.

The Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite attached to NASA-NOAA Suomi NPP satellite spotted what appears to be a dust storm blowing off the Sahara Desert and into the waters of the Atlantic Basin, where it could eventually end up in the Americas. 

NASA-NOAA Suomi NPP satellite took the image on June 4. A more recent update shows the dust is well over the central Atlantic Ocean by Tuesday. 

💨Big outbreak of Saharan dust across the MDR of the Atlantic.

Sleepy in the tropics this week thanks to this. 🌀🚫 pic.twitter.com/zcAhg7M7tR

— Griffin Hardy (@GriffinHardyWX) June 8, 2021

Weather modeling via meteorologist John Gerard suggests this is “the beginning of the Saharan Dust season soon, satellite indicates the first large plume of the summer has emerged off the coast of Africa now and should arrive in Florida by next week.”

Texas Division of Emergency Management’s meteorologist John Honoré says, “It’s that time of year again. Saharan dust is working its way across the Atlantic this week.” 

It’s that time of year again. Saharan Dust working its way across the Atlantic this week. #OrangeHaze #TXwx pic.twitter.com/185wLom8zD

— John Honoré (@JohnHonore) June 8, 2021

“The African easterly jet [stream] exports the dust from Africa towards the Atlantic region,” Bing Pu, a geologist and atmospheric scientist at the University of Kansas, said in a NASA press release. “Then the North Atlantic subtropical high, which is a high-pressure system sitting over the subtropical North Atlantic, can further transport it towards the Caribbean region. The Caribbean low-level jet, along with the subtropical high, can further transport the dust from the Caribbean region towards the [U.S.].”

The storm comes about one year after a massive dust storm from the Sahara blanketed the Caribbean region and the Gulf of Mexico. 

So it appears the Sahara dust is back, and it’s already approaching parts of the Caribbean Sea. Next stop the U.S.? 

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

We recently discussed the case of Loudoun County teacher Byron “Tanner” Cross who was suspended for speaking against gender policies. In a major victory for the free speech rights of teachers, Twelfth Circuit Judge James E. Plowman ordered LCPS to restore Cross’ position as a physical education teacher at Leesburg Elementary School. In a letter, the court found a basis for a temporary injunction to allow Cross to return until Dec. 31 pending further orders of the court.

Cross ran into trouble when he appeared at a meeting of the school board.

He began by stating “My name is Tanner Cross and I am speaking out of love for those who are suffering from gender dysphoria.”

He goes on to reference that he is a teacher but would not follow the policies:

“It’s not my intention to hurt anyone, but there are certain truths that we must face when ready. We condemn school policies [that] would damage children, defile the holy image of God. I love all of my students but I will never lie to them regardless of the consequences. I’m a teacher but I serve God first and I will not affirm that a biological boy can be a girl and vice versa because it’s against my religion. It’s lying to a child, it’s abuse to a child, and it’s sinning against our God.”

Cross was making reference to a “60 Minutes” program interviewing people who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria as young children and quickly put through gender changing procedures with little time or serious review. Those interviewed described how they were harmed by the transitioning procedures and felt that little was done to protect them.

Cross’ statement appeared to refuse to comply with Policy 8040, which requires Loudoun staff to use preferred pronouns.

“LCPS staff shall allow gender-expansive or transgender students to use their 18 chosen name and gender pronouns that reflect their gender identity without any substantiating evidence, regardless of the name and gender recorded in the student’s permanent educational record. School staff shall, at the request of a student or parent/legal guardian, when using a name or pronoun to address the student, use the name and pronoun that correspond to their gender identity.”

Notably, the rule extends to other students who can be punished for failing to use the required pronouns:

“The use of gender-neutral pronouns are appropriate. Inadvertent slips in the use of names or pronouns may occur; however, staff or students who intentionally and persistently refuse to respect a student’s gender identity by using the wrong name and gender pronoun are in violation of this policy.”

The punishment of a student for failing to use the pronouns could create the most difficult constitutional challenges under the First Amendment. That could be deemed as compelled speech in contravention of their religious and political views.

However, now Cross appears likely to prevail as a teacher. The ruling in his favor required a finding that he was likely to prevail in seeking the injunctive relief.

The county notably stressed that the basis for the suspension was the disruption caused by Cross’ comments.  That was a major blunder by the county and its counsel.

Notably, the school district did not find that the national controversy surrounding the remarks of another teacher presented similar disruption.

Loudoun County teacher Andrea Weiskopf called for book bans and attacked those supporting classics like To Kill A Mocking Bird as advocating harmful “White Saviorism.”

It would have been wiser to focus on a refusal to comply with school policy, though it would need to confirm with Cross that he would do so. Accordingly, “[T]he Court has found … that the disruption relied upon was insufficient.” Plowman further found that  Cross’ “interest in expressing his First Amendment speech outweigh the Defendant’s interest in restricting the same and the level of disruption that Defendant asserts did not serve to meaningfully disrupt the operations or services of Leesburg Elementary School.”

The Court also noted that at least five teachers submitted declarations that they would like to speak publicly but are afraid to do so because of the retaliation against Cross.  By focusing on the likely “disruption” caused by Cross’ views, the county undermined its position by focusing on the content of his views. The suspension occurred within 24 hours of his remarks, so there was little time to establish his position on carrying out his duties in light of the policy. The court distinguished between the “expectations” and the “mandate” of the policy.  It found that Cross may not satisfy the expectations but still not violate the policy. Thus, the suspension was viewed as premature and the evidence insufficient.

That is a remarkable win for a teacher in the current environment. There has been growing pressure to monitor and sanction teachers for public comments. Last year, Winthrop University Professor, April Mustian threatened K-12 teachers that they are being watched for any “rhetoric” deemed pro-police or anti-Black. We previously discussed the Vermont principal who was removed for  expressing her opinion of Black Lives Matter on her personal Facebook page. We also recently discussed the firing of a Michigan coach who expressed support for President Trump. However, this did not begin with the recent protests.  We have previously seen teachers (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here) students (here, here and here) and other public employees (here and here and here) fired for their private speech or conduct, including school employees fired for posing in magazines (here), appearing on television shows in bikinis (here), or having a prior career in the adult entertainment industry (here).

The school could appeal but it would be wise to reframe its position before it reenters litigation. Better yet, it could work out a compromise to protect free speech rights. As I discussed earlier, the rule does state that “School staff shall, at the request of a student or parent/legal guardian, when using a name or pronoun to address the student, use the name and pronoun that correspond to their gender identity.” Yet, this is “when using a name or pronounce to address the student.” What if a teacher simply does not use a pronoun?  If Cross refers to such students by their last name and avoids any pronoun, would that be considered compliance? If so, the board should clearly lay out such options in writing. Indeed, if Cross is fired, such questions could be soon before a court.

Real Vision senior editor Ash Bennington welcomes Thomas Thornton to discuss the inflation debate ahead of the US CPI number to be released Thursday and the bullish sentiment present in markets. The pair examines the effect of Bitcoin’s illegal use and confiscation on the downturn that the asset has recently experienced. In addition, they look to make sense of meme stock mania as Wendy’s and Clover Health stocks explode higher.

In a continuing trend in Latin American politics of Left-wing political movements on the ascendancy which has seen successful attempts to roll back free market friendly policies in favor of “starting from scratch” toward erecting more interventionist socialist states, the next political and electoral earthquake is set to hit Peru, where socialist candidate Pedro Castillo is maintaining a narrow lead over right-wing rival Keiko Fujimori as votes are still being counted and increasingly contested from Sunday’s run-off election.

As of early Tuesday it’s still being deemed “too close to call”, but with Castillo pulling away Fujimori is now alleging election “irregularities”. Son of peasant famers and an outspoken union leader, Castillo has “vowed to nationalize Peru’s vast mineral resources, to expel foreigners who commit crimes in the country, and to move towards reinstating the death penalty,” according to one profile.

While widely seen as far left, he doesn’t exactly fit standard partisan molds given he’s also been described as a Marxist socialist who rejects Communism, works with right-wing populists on labor rights and pension benefits, and is opposed to same-sex marriage, abortion & “gender ideology.”

Well over 95% of the vote has been counted, but it remains that remote rural areas are continuing to be tallied, and this is expected to favor Castillo; however, there are expectations of a prolonged contested outcome which could lead to further political instability after a years-long crisis in government. 

The Guardian this week quoted one voter who summarized what’s at issue for many on the right, who fear Castillo government would only emulate failed policies elsewhere in the region…

Roxana Araníbal Fernandez, 56, an insurance company worker, who voted for Fujimori in the middle-class Miraflores neighborhood in Lima, said: “We want the country to keep progressing. We don’t want to copy models which we have seen don’t work from Venezuela or Cuba.”

But the legacy of Fujimori’s father – who is serving a 25-year sentence over corruption and death squad murders – and her own record as a politician play against her.

Peru election: Country on edge ahead of unpredictable run-off https://t.co/1x78nc8BOI

— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) June 5, 2021

Responding to such widespread accusations, during a recent stump speech Castillo sought to assure,  “We have just sat down and clarified that we are not communists, we are not Chavistas, we are not terrorists. We are workers like any of you; we have met in the streets; within that framework, we ask you for tranquility,” he expressed.

Some of the headlines are capturing a general sense of “panic” among Peru’s wealthy and elite class amid fears that a Castillo victory could lead to capital flight from Lima…

Meanwhile Reuters noted that Peru’s sol has continued plummeting to new lows, falling another 1% Tuesday after plunging 2.5% on Monday.

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who has signaled opposition to several Democrat-proposed voting bills and ending the filibuster, said he won’t budge on a sweeping bill to overhaul federal elections after he met with civil rights groups.

“There was nothing basically for or against … basically everyone’s position was discussed,” Manchin told reporters on Tuesday after meeting with NAACP President Derrick Johnson, Al Sharpton, National Urban League president Marc Morial, and others.

When asked about whether he would support the “For the People Act” bill, the Democrat senator said, “No, I don’t think anybody changed positions on that,” according to The Hill.

The Democrat-backed For the People Act was passed in the House along party lines and would limit gerrymandering, change campaign finance rules, and would create new ethics rules for some federal officials. Republicans and conservative organizations such as the Heritage Foundation oppose the bill, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) describing the measure as a “one-sided power grab” when it was first introduced in 2019.

If Manchin opts to support the bill, Senate Republicans would very likely use the filibuster, which requires a 60-vote threshold to overcome, to block its passage.

As a result, some congressional Democrats have called for the abolition of the Senate filibuster, a proposal that Manchin has said he would oppose. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) has also signaled opposition to ending the filibuster.

“I’m very honored that we all got the chance to speak, listen to each other. That’s really what it’s about. We learned and listened,” Manchin also said of his meeting on Tuesday. 

“We had a constructive conversation. I think everybody pretty much knows the importance of what we’re doing. And I think I’m very much concerned about our democracy, protecting people’s voting rights,” the senator continued.

Manchin previously said that he won’t support the measure, saying it’s too broad and won’t receive bipartisan support.

A number of leftist Democrats in the House, including “Squad” member Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), have started to take an increasingly hard-line stance against Manchin.

“Joe Manchin has become the new Mitch McConnell. Mitch McConnell during Obama’s presidency said he would do everything in his power to stop (then-President Barack Obama),” Bowman told CNN this week.

“He’s also repeated that now during the Biden presidency by saying he would do everything in his power to stop President Biden, and now Joe Manchin is doing everything in his power to stop democracy and to stop our work for the people, the work that the people sent us here to do.”

It came after Manchin wrote an opinion article for the Charleston Gazette saying he won’t back the bill because “partisan voting legislation will destroy the already weakening binds of our democracy.”

For that, Republicans, including former President Donald Trump, praised the West Virginia Senator.

“He’s doing the right thing and it’s a very important thing,” Trump said of Manchin during a Fox News interview on Monday.

“Otherwise you’re going to be packing the court. You’re going to be doing all sorts of very, very bad things that were unthinkable and were never even brought up during the election. Nobody brought this stuff up.”

An extremely rare, uncirculated 1933 Double Eagle gold coin sold for a record $19.51 million at Sotbeby’s auction in New York on Tuesday.

Sotheby’s described the $20 coin designed by American sculptor Agustus Saint Gaudens as the last US gold coin ever made and intended for circulation, making it “one of the most coveted coins in the world.” The $19.51 million sale price blew past pre-sale estimates of between $10 and $15 million, breaking the record for the most expensive coin in the world which was previously set by a 1974 Flowing Hair silver dollar that went for $10 million in 2013, according to AFP.

The Double Eagle, which was never issued after US President Franklin D. Roosevelt took the United States off the gold standard in place since the 1830s, and issued Executive Order 6102 forbidding “the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates.”

More from AFP on the history of the coin:

The Double Eagle has an image of Lady Liberty on one side and an American eagle on the other. 

The 1933 Double Eagles were the last American gold coins intended for circulation by the United States Mint but were never legally issued for use.

That year, President Roosevelt removed the United States from the gold standard in an effort to lift America’s battered economy out of the Great Depression.

All of the coins were ordered to be destroyed, apart from two which were given to the Smithsonian Institution.

However, in 1937, several of the coins appeared on the market, sparking a Secret Service investigation in 1944 that ruled that the coins had been stolen from the US government and were illegal to own.

Prior to the probe, one of the coins was purchased and mistakenly granted an export license, Sotheby’s said in its notes.

It ended up in the coin collection of King Farouk of Egypt. When Sotheby’s tried to auction the Double Eagle in 1954, the US Treasury successfully had it withdrawn.

The coin’s whereabouts were then unknown until 1996 when it was seized during a Secret Service sting at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York.

A five-year legal tussle ensued and it was decided that the coin could be privately owned. -AFP

Meanwhile, other Double Eagles which have surfaced have been ruled the property of the United States in various cases – including by the Supreme Court, making the coin bought on Tuesday the only 1933 Double Eagle allowed to be legally sold. It last changed hands in 2002 when designer Stuart Weitzman bought it for $7.59 million.

Fun fact; $20 invested in the Dow in 1933 would be worth $7,055 today.