Whole Foods Fight Over Black Lives Matter Masks Pits National Labor Relations Board Against Free Speech


zumaamericaseight850888

Are employee dress codes illegal? That’s the implication in a consolidated complaint filed against Whole Foods Market by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The NLRB argues that it’s illegal for Whole Foods to say that grocery store staff can’t wear Black Lives Matter (BLM) paraphernalia at work.

To force Whole Foods to let staff wear BLM gear would be “to compel employer speech,” the company counters. And that, it says, violates the First Amendment.

As it stands, Whole Foods’ corporate policy forbids employees from wearing any symbols, slogans, flags, messages, logos, or advertising while working. In 2020, supervisors at various Whole Foods locations allegedly enforced this policy against employees wearing BLM gear. Staff wearing BLM masks and pins were allegedly asked to remove them, sent home for refusing to remove them, or otherwise disciplined for refusing to take them off.

The NLRB says that wearing BLM messages at work counts as “raising concerns about working conditions” and accuses Whole Foods of having and enforcing an appearance rule “to restrict employees from engaging in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection.” Whole Foods “has been interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed” by the National Labor Relations Act, it says—and that, it declares, amounts to unfair labor practices.

Whole Foods “denies each and every allegation contained in the Complaint,” the company wrote in response, asking that the complaint be dismissed entirely.

Whole Foods argues that “employees do not have a protected right…to display the phrase ‘Black Lives Matter’ or ‘BLM’ in the workplace,” and that the NLRB’s complaint represents an effort to expand the protections of the National Labor Relations Act “beyond current NLRB and judicial interpretation.”

Under current interpretations of the statute, nothing the BLM-promoting Whole Foods staffers did would qualify as protected activities, the company argues. Nor would Whole Foods’ actions here qualify as illegally interfering with protected workplace activities.

The company “maintains a neutral dress code that is lawful under extant Board law,” it adds, and “all discipline issued to employees was solely for violations of [this] neutral dress code.” Such actions “were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory factors.”

In a statement last month, NLRB Regional Director for San Francisco Jill Coffman claimed this case is about “issues of racial harassment and discrimination [that] are central to employees’ working conditions.”

But “the phrases ‘Black Lives Matter,’ ‘BLM,’ the ‘Black Lives Matter movement,’ and/or ‘blacklivesmatter.org’ are not objectively understood to relate to workplace issues,” the company argues.  Rather, “employees’ wearing of ‘Black Lives Matter’ and/or ‘BLM’ in Whole Foods Market brand stores was an exercise in political and/or social justice speech through which [they] sought to support societal changes outside the workplace and…without a nexus to any term or condition of employment at Whole Foods Market brand stores.”

Requiring Whole Foods to allow BLM messaging as part of employee uniforms would compel speech and be unconstitutional, the company argues. If the NLRB gets its way, it adds, that would force Whole Foods to act in a discriminatory manner by requiring that the company favor “certain expressions of political speech over others in its retail grocery stores.” (Alternately, it could allow any type of political messaging, but something tells me supporters of the staff wearing BLM gear wouldn’t be so happy to buy groceries from a guy in a MAGA mask…)

Whole Foods also asserts that no employees were fired over this matter but that they voluntarily resigned rather than comply with the dress code.

A hearing with an administrative law judge of the NLRB is scheduled for March 1.

Last year, a federal judge dismissed most of a class-action lawsuit over Whole Foods stores disallowing BLM gear at work. Plaintiffs in the civil case accused Whole Foods supervisors of selectively enforcing the policy and of illegal discrimination and retaliation. Even if the claims about unequal enforcement are true, Whole Foods is still not breaking the law, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled. “There is no right to free speech in a private workplace,” she said, and it’s legal for a company to choose which messages or logos its staff can endorse while at work.

“At worst, they were selectively enforcing a dress code to suppress certain speech in the workplace,” wrote Burroughs in her decision. “However unappealing that might be,” she continued, “it is not conduct made unlawful” by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law “prohibits discrimination against a person because of race. It does not protect one’s right to associate with a given social cause, even a race-related one, in the workplace.”

The Whole Foods/BLM debate “highlights an increasingly incomprehensible position on corporate speech for many on the left,” law professor Jonathan Turley recently suggested. Many progressives have argued that social media platforms, web hosting companies, and other internet entities should be allowed (and encouraged) to ban various types of legal speech—coronavirus misinformation, say, or false claims of election fraud. Under this rubric, Whole Foods should also be allowed to tell employees what messages not to wear at work.

To the extent that conservatives agree that Whole Foods shouldn’t be forced to allow BLM attire as part of its uniforms, the case also highlights hypocrisy on the right, where many have argued that social media companies should be forced to host political content that they find objectionable.

Perhaps the takeaway here is that allowing the government to compel companies to host any type of political speech is a slippery slope. Letting companies decide what kinds of speech they’ll allow on their premises and platforms isn’t only the constitutional thing to do. It’s the best way to ensure that each side will get its way sometimes, and that consumers can avoid being constantly bombarded with political messages at every turn.

The post Whole Foods Fight Over Black Lives Matter Masks Pits National Labor Relations Board Against Free Speech appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3KLVC3g
via IFTTT

JPMorgan: Not Enough Capitulation To Call A Bottom

JPMorgan: Not Enough Capitulation To Call A Bottom

One day (and one week and one month) after JPM called again to buy the dip, at least one group inside the largest US bank – arguably the most important one – is getting cold feet on a quick bounce. As the bank’s trading desk writes this morning, while stocks reacted poorly to Powell’s unexpectedly hawkish comments, interestingly retail investors bought $1.69bn on the day: “this is the second most on record.”

This is a problem because it means that the market still refuses to capitulate and signal an all clear (see more below).

And while retail investors stubbornly continue to buy the dip, JPM also notes that it is still the case that “we hadn’t seen consistent signs of capitulation by HFs” and adds that it seems that there’s an impulse to buy the dip recently among a broad set of discretionary investors. “Given how much the market has declined recently, it does seem like we could see a bounce, but whether this is a sustainable rebound remains to be seen in our view.”

Here are JPMorgan Prime’s key points on recent flows:

  • HF Flows – dip buying on Mon and Tues, post large selling on Fri:
    • HFs bought the dip on Mon and Tues (just under +1z globally both days)
    • Notionally, the biggest buying was in N. America (+1.4z on Mon and 1.2z on Tues). N. America buying on Tues was evenly split between longs added and short covered. L/S funds were net buyers on both days, although the majority of buying on Mon was short covering, while ~75% of buying yest came from longs added.
  • EMEA also saw meaningful buying on Tues (+1.8z) following a week of neutral activity and most of the buying was due to longs added.
    • In contrast, APAC saw selling increase on Tues (-2z) as flows reverse. Notably APAC had seen the largest acceleration in buying in late Dec and early Jan, but has seen flows turn much more negative as the broad indices have hit new lows (rather than just going back to early Oct levels like in NA or EMEA). The selling on Tues was mostly longs sold
  • ETF Flows – turning more positive:
    • Second day in a row of buying yest at about +2.8bn (vs. +1.4bn), after 7 days of net selling
    • Note: these flows are based on a selection of broad index ETFs (e.g. SPY, IWM, QQQ) as well as sector ETFs (e.g. XLF, XLE)
  • Retail Flows – reversal to buying (based on data from Peng Cheng, JPM QDS Research):
    • Overall flows turned to >1Bn of net buying on Tues
    • Notably, single-stocks saw net buying return (almost ~$500mm bought) vs. the selling of the prior 4 days
    • Through Monday, single-stocks had been net sold for 4 days in a row. The 5d rolling net flows for single-stocks is at one of the most negative of the past 2 years…it only got a lot more negative in March 2020. Including ETFs, however, the 5d flows are still positive and the 20d are still very positive

For those wondering what stocks retail is buying and selling, here is the answer: first the stocks with the largest retail order buy imbalance:

And here are the ones with the smallest:

Is the coast clear? According to JPM’s traders (and not its increasingly clueless sellside researchers who can only parrot “BTFD” every single week), given the set-up into the Fed and potential for earnings to be OK/better than feared, “it seems we could be in the rebound phase that often follows a large drawdown (i.e. nearly 10% or more).”

However, given the lack of strong capitulation, it is not yet clear to the bank whether this rebound should be any more than short-term and tactical in nature. In addition, how discretionary investors perform if there is a bounce over the next week or so could be critical.

Bottom line: “Given many have captured a large amount of the decline, if they don’t capture a lot of the rebound, it could continue to create risks.”

* * *

So what does this mean for stocks from here? According to JPM desk trader Andrew Tyler, one should buy the highest quality names “and we are seeing their bifurcation within the Tech sector, with FANG+  outperforming.” As for vol, it may remain elevated until we have liftoff at the Fed’s March 16 meeting.

Also, we should have seen Omicron dissipate in the US by that meeting as well as having completed this earnings season with the potential for positive pre-announcements/earnings revisions ahead of the April/May earnings period.

AS such, until March JPM advises clients to consider more of a market-neutral approach with a +high quality vs. –low quality within each sector of exposure. More broadly, the barbell trade (e.g. long FANG+, long Energy, long Metals/Miners, long Consumer Recovery, and long Transports vs. shorts in IG credit, Staples, and the SPX) feels like a prudent way to express risk, according to JPM.

Meanwhile, as the market moves toward a more fundamentally-driven approach, inflation concerns will dominate the 2022H1 narrative (at least until recession fears explode); but SPX companies have been able to weather these costs and 2021 was a year of at/near record margins. This may continue in 2022 as we see input costs decrease throughout the year, potentially more than offsetting any spikes to wage inflation.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/27/2022 – 14:59

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3o6Xg5Y Tyler Durden

Elon Musk Asks College Kid To Remove Twitter-Bot Tracking Private Jet

Elon Musk Asks College Kid To Remove Twitter-Bot Tracking Private Jet

Twitter account, “Elon Musk’s Jet,” is one of the most popular out of 15 flight-tracking accounts 19-year-old Jack Sweeney developed last fall. The Twitter bot monitors Musk’s private jet movements around the world. 

According to tech website Protocol, Sweeney recently received a direct message on Twitter from Musk requesting him to take down the account due to security risks. 

Sweeney replied: “Yes, I can, but it’ll cost you a Model 3 only joking unless?”

Elon Musk’s Jet has 88k followers and uses bots programmed to track every time Musk departs and arrives at airports worldwide. 

The account is becoming so popular that Musk is getting nervous. He told Sweeney, “I don’t love the idea of being shot by a nutcase.” 

Musk, the world’s richest man (according to Bloomberg data), offered Sweeney a measly $5k to remove the account to “keep crazy people from tracking his location.” 

Sweeney responded: “Any chance to up that to $50k? It would be a great support in college and would possibly allow me to get a car, maybe even a Model 3.”

Musk has since gone radio silent since the last exchange on Jan. 19. 

For some color on the complexity of the bots tracking Musk’s private jet. The protocol provides more color:

But Twitter bots don’t get starstruck. They’ve just gone on parsing the data Sweeney’s told them to. The 15 bots use FAA information when available — the administration keeps track of when and where planes depart and land, as well as their intended path. However, Musk’s plane and many others are on the LADD block list, which removes identifying information from the data.

Even blocked planes aren’t truly private, though. In these cases, Sweeney uses data from the ADS-B transponders present on most aircraft which show a plane’s location in the air in real-time as charted on the ADS-B Exchange. Parsing this information is like a logic puzzle: Sweeney’s bots can use a plane’s altitude, combined with how long ago the data was received, to determine when it is taking off or landing. They can then cross-reference latitude and longitude with a database of airports to determine where the plane is leaving or headed. And though Sweeney’s bots can’t pull from blocked FAA data to figure out where a plane plans to go, they can cross-reference the real-time ADS-B data with another website that posts anonymized versions of the FAA flight plans. This allows the bot to match the plane it is tracking in real-time to the anonymized FAA flight plans and determine each plane’s intended destination. This information is all entirely public, and can be used to track most private aircraft.

Tracking private jets of CEOs is nothing new in the hedge fund industry. There are services that some traders pay upwards of $100k to retrieve flight data of the movements of deal-makers. 

Quandl, a flight tracking company that sells data to hedge funds, noticed a private jet several years ago that flew to Omaha, Nebraska, home of billionaire investor Warren Buffett. Traders who had access to this data saw that representatives of Occidental Petroleum might be in talks with Buffett. 

Days later, Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway infused Occidental with $10 billion cash to proceed with its $38 billion cash and stock offer for Anadarko.

Rounding back to Sweeney, the proprietary bots he’s created shouldn’t be nuked but instead taken private and sold to a hedge fund or Quandl. 

According to Elon Musk’s Jet’s latest tweet, Musk just landed in Austin, Texas. 

Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/27/2022 – 14:42

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3IHSuDF Tyler Durden

Fed’s Fisher: Market Must Take Off “Beer Goggles” Because Powell’s Not Coming To The Rescue

Fed’s Fisher: Market Must Take Off “Beer Goggles” Because Powell’s Not Coming To The Rescue

With futures lurching back into the green early Thursday morning following yesterday’s Powell-induced market ructions, former Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher, who has developed a reputation for his blunt talk about ZIRP and its consequences, joined CNBC’s “Squawk Box” for an interview.

His comments Thursday morning echoed his remarks from February 2020, when he proclaimed – just as US stocks were tumbling into correction territory at the fastest pace since the Great Depression – that Fed rate cuts wouldn’t do anything to improve corporate access to credit that markets weren’t doing on their own already. Instead, the longtime Fed insider declared that it’s long past time for the Fed to try and wean markets off of what he termed “Fed largess”.

“…the market is getting ahead of itself, because the market is dependent on Fed largess… and we made it that way…

…but we have to consider, through a statement rather than an action, that we must wean the market off its dependency on a Fed put.

Speaking Thursday, Fisher joked that markets have been wearing “beer goggles for years” thanks to ZIRP and QE. However, Fisher offered a vote of confidence in the Fed’s ability to defy markets that was almost surprising: although it hasn’t been removed entirely, the “Fed put” has seen its “strike price move dramatically”.

“Let’s face it Joe, I want to come back to the alcohol metaphor we started with, the market has been wearing beer goggles for the longest possible time…and they just assume the Fed’s going to bail them out. I think the strike price on the Fed put has moved significantly…and unless we have a dramatic turn in the markets that indicates it can infect the real economy, I don’t believe – under this chair in particular who has a credit market background – that they will be weak in following through on what they pronounced.”

Perhaps the forcefulness of that response was a result of the goading by CNBC’s Joe Kernan, who implied that the Fed has had “feet of clay”, meaning no resolve to stand behind its prescribed policy course when markets react.

If Fisher is correct, however, that would be bad news for the generation of Wall Street traders who still have never faced a drawn-out bear market in equities (just swift and vicious bear-market corrections like we saw in February and March 2020). If the Fed truly is intent on abandoning the “Fed put”, then two-way volatility might finally become a more regular feature in equity markets.

Back in February 2020, the former Dallas Fed chief offered some more thoughts about Wall Street’s ‘lost generation’.

“The Fed has created this dependency and there’s an entire generation of money-managers who weren’t around in ’74, ’87, the end of the ’90s, and even 2007-2009.. and have only seen a one-way street… of course they’re nervous.”

“The question is – do you want to feed that hunger? Keep applying that opioid of cheap and abundant money?”

Readers can watch the clip below:

Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/27/2022 – 14:21

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3o4pxKk Tyler Durden

The Tennessee Supreme Court Could Decide the Fate of Nashville’s Home Recording Studios


Shaw1

The Tennessee Supreme Court could soon decide whether home recording studios can keep making music in Music City.

On Wednesday, the court heard oral arguments in a lawsuit challenging Nashville’s restrictions on client visits to home-based businesses. The plaintiffs argue that the city’s regulations arbitrarily and unfairly deprive them of their right to earn a living.

“I’ve been doing this for 30 years here, so I’ve already sunk my entire life’s career and family into this,” says Lij Shaw, one of two plaintiffs suing Nashville over the rules. “For me and most people I know, we can’t stop making music. We’re artists, and we love to do this.”

Shaw, who Reason profiled in 2019, has been fighting to save his business, The Toy Box Studio, since 2015. That’s the year Nashville’s code enforcers informed him that the law barred him from recording musicians for pay at his home. Presented with the choice of either shutting down his operation or fighting back, Shaw chose the latter.

In 2017, he and Patricia Raynor—whose home hair salon business was similarly targeted—sued Nashville to overturn its prohibition on client visits.

Their lawsuit argues that neither business has caused any injury to its neighbors by receiving customers at their homes, making Nashville’s restriction on client visits arbitrary.

The city, Shaw notes, places no limits on how many people you can invite into your home for free, which allows for much more disruptive activities.

“It would technically be legal to hire the entire symphony orchestra to come to my studio, park all over the neighborhood like a football party, and record all weekend,” says Shaw. “But if they paid me $1 for a thank you, it would be illegal.”

Shaw and Raynor’s complaint also says that Nashville’s policy is unfair to their particular businesses, given that the city allows home-based businesses such as short-term rentals to have up to 12 paying customers onsite. This unequal treatment, they argue, violates the Tennessee Constitution.

In 2019, a Davidson County Chancery Court judge ruled against Shaw and Raynor. Because Nashville could articulate potential harms from allowing home-based businesses to serve clients onsite, the judge said, the prohibition was rational and, thus, constitutional.

Home-based businesses received something of a reprieve the following year. In July 2020, Nashville’s Metro Council voted to amend its client visit prohibition to allow home businesses like Shaw and Raynor’s to service up to six customers onsite per day.

That’s an improvement over the status quo, says Keith Diggs, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm representing Shaw and Raynor. (The Tennessee-based Beacon Center is also working on the case.) But it’s still unequal treatment, he notes.

“Pat and Lij can only have six clients a day,” Diggs notes, while “day care homes [and] historic home events can have up to 12 more clients a day.” The city’s ordinance also sunsets in January 2023. It is unclear whether client visits will be flatly prohibited or totally unregulated after the law expires.

An attorney for Nashville told the Tennessee Supreme Court yesterday that while the ordinance is ambiguous, it’s her interpretation that there will be no restrictions on client visits once the law expires.

Diggs says that Nashville has taken conflicting stances on what happens after the law sunsets. That ambiguity—and the fact that the city could easily reimpose explicit restrictions on client visits in the future—still makes this a live issue, he says.

During yesterday’s hearing, the justices spent most of their time exploring whether Shaw and Raynor’s case is moot given that Nashville has lifted its blanket prohibition on client visits and given that the new six-client-a-day limit is set to expire next year.

They could choose to dismiss the case, send it back to a lower court, or rule outright on the merits of Nashville’s restrictions.

The hope, says Diggs, is that the state Supreme Court will issue a decision saying that “facts actually matter.”

At no point, he says, has Nashville been able to show that Shaw or Raynor’s home businesses were negatively impacting their neighbors. Without that, he argues, the city shouldn’t be able to impose restrictions on what business owners can do on their own property.

Shaw says a ruling protecting home businesses would add much-needed certainty for his studio, which he has sunk some $50,000 into since Nashville passed its temporary rules allowing client visits. He says it would also help preserve the unique music scene that has made his city famous.

“Music City is still a rare gem in the world where the world’s musicians get together face-to-face in front of microphones,” he says. “Without the ability to have a musician come to my home studio, I’ll be forever stuck in a world of Zoom calls and computer living. I don’t want to let the old music die.”

The post The Tennessee Supreme Court Could Decide the Fate of Nashville's Home Recording Studios appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3G98htz
via IFTTT

Masa Son’s “Right Hand Man” Marcelo Claure Quits SoftBank After $2 Billion Pay Dispute

Masa Son’s “Right Hand Man” Marcelo Claure Quits SoftBank After $2 Billion Pay Dispute

After a bitter dispute over compensation that poisoned his relationship with Softbank Chairman Masayoshi Son, SoftBank COO Marcelo Claure is reportedly preparing to resign from the Japanese telecoms giant.

Claure, whose previous duties have included running Sprint,  WeWork, the SoftBank Vision Fund and other key businesses, reportedly has designs on running his own investment firm, CNBC reported Thursday. In its report, CNBC described Claure as Masa Son’s longtime “right hand man”.

The executive joined SoftBank in 2013 after selling a majority stake of wireless provider Brightstar to the company for $1.26 billion. He later became CEO of Softbank-majority owned Sprint, which successfully merged with T-Mobile in April 2020.

Late last year, it was reported that Claure was enmeshed in a dispute over $2 billion in pay. According to reporting from the NYT, Claure believes he is owed the $2 billion for “cleaning up” Masa Son’s many messes, from WeWork to the Vision Fund and beyond.

Marcelo Claure, the firm’s chief operating officer and a close confidant of the SoftBank founder and chief executive Masayoshi Son, is seeking roughly $2 billion in compensation over the next several years, according to four people with knowledge of the discussions who were not authorized to speak publicly on pay issues. Mr. Son and other senior SoftBank executives in Japan are seeking to pay Mr. Claure a much smaller sum – tens of millions of dollars at most.

The unusually large amount at stake reflects Mr. Claure’s singular role at SoftBank, where he has been part Mr. Fixit and part ambassador – untangling messy investments, scouting out lucrative opportunities and wooing start-up founders – since joining in 2017. He arrived after running the telecom company Sprint when asked to do so by Mr. Son.

Mr. Claure has insisted in private conversations with individuals inside and outside SoftBank that he was owed the $2 billion for various cleanup jobs, including straightening out SoftBank’s investment in WeWork, the office-space leasing giant that went public in October. The amount also reflects Mr. Claure’s estimate of the future value he could bring to SoftBank, one of the individuals said.

SoftBank is expected to make an announcement about Claure’s departure, as well as his replacement, in the coming days. The size of Claure’s exit package is unclear. Former Altice CEO Michel Combes, presently the president of SoftBank Group International, will assume Claure’s duties running SoftBank’s international operations, according to one insider who spoke with the NYT.

The timing of Claure’s departure couldn’t be worse for shareholders. SoftBank’s share price is down more than 30% since the start of the year alone, cratering as valuations among its portfolio companies plummet. Several other SoftBank insiders have been miffed by the fact that, in several cases, SoftBank later invested in companies that Claure had privately backed with his own fortune.

The Japanese firm has so far refused to acknowledge the media reports. But one thing’s for sure: this is a bad time to lose their ace clean-up guy.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/27/2022 – 14:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3oqIW8D Tyler Durden

The Tennessee Supreme Court Could Decide the Fate of Nashville’s Home Recording Studios


Shaw1

The Tennessee Supreme Court could soon decide whether home recording studios can keep making music in Music City.

On Wednesday, the court heard oral arguments in a lawsuit challenging Nashville’s restrictions on client visits to home-based businesses. The plaintiffs argue that the city’s regulations arbitrarily and unfairly deprive them of their right to earn a living.

“I’ve been doing this for 30 years here, so I’ve already sunk my entire life’s career and family into this,” says Lij Shaw, one of two plaintiffs suing Nashville over the rules. “For me and most people I know, we can’t stop making music. We’re artists, and we love to do this.”

Shaw, who Reason profiled in 2019, has been fighting to save his business, the Toy Box Studio, since 2015. That’s the year Nashville’s code enforcers informed him that the law barred him from recording musicians for pay at his home. Presented with the choice of either shutting down his operation or fighting back, Shaw chose the latter.

In 2017, he and Patricia Raynor—whose home hair salon business was similarly targeted—sued Nashville to overturn its prohibition on client visits.

Their lawsuit argues that neither business has caused any injury to its neighbors by receiving customers at their homes, making Nashville’s restriction on client visits arbitrary.

The city, Shaw notes, places no limits on how many people you can invite into your home for free, which allows for much more disruptive activities.

“It would technically be legal to hire the entire symphony orchestra to come to my studio, park all over the neighborhood like a football party, and record all weekend,” says Shaw. “But if they paid me $1 for a thank you, it would be illegal.”

Shaw and Raynor’s complaint also says that Nashville’s policy is unfair to their particular businesses, given that the city allows home-based businesses such as short-term rentals to have up to 12 paying customers onsite. This unequal treatment, they argue, violates the Tennessee Constitution.

In 2019, a Davidson County Chancery Court judge ruled against Shaw and Raynor. Because Nashville could articulate potential harms from allowing home-based businesses to serve clients onsite, the judge said, the prohibition was rational and, thus, constitutional.

Home-based businesses received something of a reprieve the following year. In July 2020, Nashville’s Metro Council voted to amend its client visit prohibition to allow home businesses like Shaw and Raynor’s to service up to six customers onsite per day.

That’s an improvement over the status quo, says Keith Diggs, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm representing Shaw and Raynor. (The Tennessee-based Beacon Center is also working on the case.) But it’s still unequal treatment, he notes.

“Pat and Lij can only have six clients a day,” Diggs notes, while “day care homes [and] historic home events can have up to 12 more clients a day.” The city’s ordinance also sunsets in January 2023. It is unclear whether client visits will be flatly prohibited or totally unregulated after the law expires.

An attorney for Nashville told the Tennessee Supreme Court yesterday that while the ordinance is ambiguous, it’s her interpretation that there will be no restrictions on client visits once the law expires.

Diggs says that Nashville has taken conflicting stances on what happens after the law sunsets. That ambiguity—and the fact that the city could easily reimpose explicit restrictions on client visits in the future—still makes this a live issue, he says.

During yesterday’s hearing, the justices spent most of their time exploring whether Shaw and Raynor’s case is moot given that Nashville has lifted its blanket prohibition on client visits and given that the new six-client-a-day limit is set to expire next year.

They could choose to dismiss the case, send it back to a lower court, or rule outright on the merits of Nashville’s restrictions.

The hope, says Diggs, is that the state Supreme Court will issue a decision saying that “facts actually matter.”

At no point, he says, has Nashville been able to show that Shaw or Raynor’s home businesses were negatively impacting their neighbors. Without that, he argues, the city shouldn’t be able to impose restrictions on what business owners can do on their own property.

Shaw says a ruling protecting home businesses would add much-needed certainty for his studio, which he has sunk some $50,000 into since Nashville passed its temporary rules allowing client visits. He says it would also help preserve the unique music scene that has made his city famous.

“Music City is still a rare gem in the world where the world’s musicians get together face-to-face in front of microphones,” he says. “Without the ability to have a musician come to my home studio, I’ll be forever stuck in a world of Zoom calls and computer living. I don’t want to let the old music die.”

The post The Tennessee Supreme Court Could Decide the Fate of Nashville's Home Recording Studios appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3G98htz
via IFTTT

Ruble, Russian Markets Rebound As Foreign Ministry Says War With Ukraine “Unthinkable” 

Ruble, Russian Markets Rebound As Foreign Ministry Says War With Ukraine “Unthinkable” 

Early this week, on Monday, Russia’s central bank stepped in to halt the ruble’s rapid slide as it hit a 14-month low against the dollar, extending prior losses in a geopolitics-led rout. The near free fall wiped out tens of billions of dollars from Russia’s largest firms as some NATO countries began sending deployments of jets and frigates toward eastern Europe on alarmist headlines that Moscow was set to order an invasion of Ukraine. 

However, while the week opened looking like the region was on the brink of war, it was Ukrainian leaders themselves attempting to walk back the claims of “imminent” invasion, which in turn gave way to some level of reported progress made in high-level dialogue – particularly in Paris involving talks among Russia, Ukraine, Germany, and France. Further suggesting that deescalation is in the air, the ruble is now quickly clawing back drastic losses, along with a rebound across Russian markets more broadly.

“Russia’s ruble advances by the most since May 7 after the Foreign Ministry said war with Ukraine would be unthinkable,” Bloomberg reports. Simultaneously on Thursday Belarus state officials confirmed that the current Russian military assets in the country would depart after February joint drills wrap up. The West had condemned Russia’s sending forces into its partner country, which had included S-400 missile deployments.

And The Moscow Times observes of the rebound, “The ruble was trading below 78 to the U.S. dollar on Thursday afternoon, having surpassed the landmark level of 80 on Wednesday night, when the U.S. and NATO delivered their formal responses to Russia’s demands for a sweeping new security pact in Europe.”

“State-owned energy companies and banks topped the leaderboard, with Rosneft, Gazprom and Sberbank all up by more than 8%,” the report notes. This a day after Moscow finally received a long awaited written response from the US over security proposals submitted earlier this month.

While FM Lavrov said the US “deliberately avoided” addressing Russia’s central concern of security guarantees pledging no more NATO expansion eastward, he still acknowledged the document to be a basis of further US-Russia dialogue, suggesting further optimism the two sides are backing away from the precipice. “The content of the document – there is a reaction that allows us to count on the start of a serious conversation, but on secondary issues,” Lavrov underscored.

Meanwhile, the White House is still signaling the possible ramping up of sanctions on Russia – even advancing the threat of personal sanctions on Putin himself – but only in the scenario of a Russian military incursion into Ukraine. 

Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council and former president Dmitry Medvedev addressed potential “sanctions from hell” in an interview on Thursday. “We are really not scared of those sanctions. This is neither a figure of speech nor chest-thumping, it is simply a statement of what is actually happening,” he said. “We are currently facing sanctions ‘from hell’. Well, I don’t know what it is, or what it will consist of. ‘Sanctions from hell’, they say.” Medvedev added, somewhat comically: 

On the other hand, I remember well the words of my colleague Barack Obama who in 2015, I think, after our deadlock due to well-known reasons, with sanctions imposed, delivered a phrase that I remember. He said that the Russian economy was “in tatters.” Well, what can [we] say, where is Obama now? Retired, as they say, while our economy is thriving and moving forward,” Medvedev emphasized.

He added that while the Russian economy has “plenty” of problems, there’s as yet “nothing overly horrific”. He concluded, “Let them use [sanctions] as domestic rhetoric, for satisfying their voters or for their political establishment, overall,” in reference to the United States.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/27/2022 – 13:50

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3KSl8nm Tyler Durden

President Biden Invites Justice Breyer To Stay In The Lincoln Bedroom

Today Justice Breyer formally announced his retirement in a letter to the President. As usual, with Breyer, nothing is simple. His retirement is contingent on several conditional statements. Breyer wrote that “I intend this decision to take effect when the Court rises for the summer recess this year (typically late June or early July) assuming that by then my successor has been nominated and confirmed.” So, for at least the next five months or longer, Breyer remains on the Court.

Later, Breyer appeared at the White House alongside the President in the Roosevelt Room. Breyer made brief, rambling remarks that touched on the Gettysburg Address. After Breyer finished, the President invited Justice Breyer and his wife to spend a night in the Lincoln Bedroom, which has a handwritten copy of the Gettysburg Address.

My mind immediately jumped to controversies over how President Clinton rewarded his donors with stays in the Lincoln Bedroom. My next thought was, the United States still has cases pending in the Supreme Court, both as a party and as amicus. Again, Justice Breyer hasn’t retired yet. And, to be frank, Breyer hasn’t stepped down until he finally steps down. We know announcements of resignation can be modified or even rescinded.  In my view, making an offer for a night in the White House, however gracious, to a sitting Supreme Court Justice, strikes me as problematic.

Breyer may have a precedent to fall back on. Remember when Justice Scalia took a hunting trip with Vice President Cheney? Scalia vigorously defended his independence. Then again, Scalia’s opinion distinguished his conduct from a private gathering at the White House:

The principal point, however, is that social courtesies, provided at Government expense by officials whose only business before the Court is business in their official capacity, have not hitherto been thought prohibited. Members of Congress and others are frequently invited to accompany Executive Branch officials on Government planes, where space is available. That this is not the sort of gift thought likely to affect a judge’s impartiality is suggested by the fact that the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 5 U. S. C. App. §101 et seq., p. 38, which requires annual reporting of transportation provided or reimbursed, excludes from this requirement transportation provided by the United States. See §109(5)(C); Committee on Financial Disclosure, Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts, Financial Disclosure Report: Filing Instructions for Judicial Officers and Employees, p. 25 (Jan. 2003). I daresay that, at a hypothetical charity auction, much more would be bid for dinner for two at the White House than for a one-way flight to Louisiana on the Vice President’s jet. Justices accept the former with regularity. While this matter was pending, Justices and their spouses were invited (all of them, I believe) to a December 11, 2003, Christmas reception at the residence of the Vice Presi-dent—which included an opportunity for a photograph with the Vice President and Mrs. Cheney. Several of the Justices attended, and in doing so they were fully in accord with the proprieties.

But Biden did not invite all of the Justices. He invited only one of them for a private stay.

Justice Breyer probably won’t take Biden up on this offer. And the White House may see fit to withdraw the offer.

The post President Biden Invites Justice Breyer To Stay In The Lincoln Bedroom appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3uluTVF
via IFTTT

Stocks Are Puking To Post-Powell Lows, Yield Curve Is Collapsing

Stocks Are Puking To Post-Powell Lows, Yield Curve Is Collapsing

Having ramped overnight, seemingly on the usual nothing at all, the algos achieved ‘mission accomplished’ by getting the S&P green post-FOMC… but the moment the S&P peeked its head above water, the selling began and is now accelerating back to yesterday’s lows…

FundStrat warned earlier in the day that “the severity of Wednesday’s reversal in US stocks likely means a retest has begun, which should take SPX back down to test and even breach Monday 1/24/22’s lows …”

It appears the cash-market open also triggered selling as algos switched from futs…

Specifically, with regard S&P levels, FundStrat notes that “4287, .. if breached, should lead down to 4222 and then under 4180-4200 ..”

Meanwhile in bond-land, its crazytown as the yield curve flattens dramatically…

Simply put, The Fed has lost control.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/27/2022 – 13:38

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3rQEwIS Tyler Durden