Month: July 2022

Federal Court of Claims Rejects Takings Claims Against CDC Eviction Moratorium


Eviction Moratorium

It went almost unnoticed amidst the dramatic legal developments at the Supreme Court. But, on May 17, US Court of Claims – the trial court that hears takings claims against the federal government – rejected a takings claim against the federal eviction moratorium, that had earlier been struck down the Supreme Court as beyond the powers of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which had enacted and reenacted it at the behest of first the Trump White House and later Biden. The takings case continued even after the moratorium ended, because the plaintiff property owners still sought compensation for the losses they suffered during the roughly 11-month period that the moratorium was in effect before the Supreme Court invalidated it.

In a post written when the takings lawsuit was first filed, I explained why the argument that eviction moratoria qualify as takings requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment was boosted by the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid:

A key reason why such claims faced bleak prospects [before] is that Supreme Court precedent made it very difficult for property owners to prevail in a takings case if the government imposed a merely “temporary” physical occupation of their land. It was often difficult to tell the difference between a temporary occupation and a permanent one. But the CDC had a strong argument that the eviction moratorium was temporary, because each successive extension of the order included a specific time limit, generally only a few weeks in the future.

Cedar Point changes that. Now, at least a as a general rule, “a physical appropriation is a taking whether it is permanent or temporary.” This makes potential takings challenges to the CDC order much stronger. A moratorium on evictions in situations where the property owner would otherwise have a right to remove the tenant pretty clearly imposes at least a temporary physical occupation against the owner’s will.

The Court of Claims ruling didn’t reject this reasoning. Instead, it ruled against the plaintiffs because the eviction moratorium was never properly authorized by Congress. Ironically, the Supreme Court’s ruling against the legality of the CDC’s policy actually helped the agency in the takings case:

To assert a viable takings claim against the United States, the government action in
issue must be duly authorized by Congress. See Del-Rio DrillingPrograms, In c. v. United States, 146 F.3d 1358, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Ct. Cl. 19 78) (“a [T]ucker Act suit does not lie for an executive taking not authorized by Congress, expressly or by implication”)… Where, as here, a federal agency’s actions are not authorized, the actions “may be enjoinable, but they do not constitute [a] taking effective to vest some kind of title in the government and entitlement to just compensation in the owner or former owner.” Del-Rio,146 F.3dat1362….

Addressing the CDC’s reliance upon the Public Health Service Act to support the
nationwide residential eviction moratorium at issue in this case, the Supreme Court characterized the government’ s arguments as “breathtaking” and “unprecedented,” explaining: “It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority that it asserts.” Alabama Ass ‘n of Realtors,_ U.S. at _ , 141 S. Ct. at 2486, 2489 …. Vacating the stay of the district court’s ruling that the CDC lacked congressional authority to issue the eviction moratorium, the Supreme Court concluded: “If a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must specifically authorize it…”

This result strikes me as perverse. Under the doctrine that only “authorized” government actions can qualify as takings, officials can get away with denying compensation if their policies were otherwise illegal. I can understand refusing to require taxpayers to pay compensation for the actions of rogue low-level officials acting on their own (so long as victims can sue the officials directly, as sadly often is not the case). But the eviction moratorium wasn’t undertaken by a few low-level miscreants. It was adopted at the behest of two successive presidents of the United States! That should be enough to qualify as official action requiring takings compensation (if what was done counts as a taking otherwise, of course).

That said, I recognize that the distinction between “authorized” and “unauthorized” government actions has a long history in takings precedent. The Court of Claims couldn’t simply overrule it all.

But, as Judge Armando Bonilla recognized in his opinoin, the precedent does distinguish “between conduct that is ‘unauthorized’ and conduct that is authorized but nonetheless unlawful.” The latter can still give rise to takings compensation. One way to distinguish between “unauthorized” and “authorized but unlawful” conduct is that the latter falls within the  “normal duties” of the officials in question. The Court of Claims ruled that the sweeping nature of the eviction moratorium made it abnormal.

To my mind, the fact that the measure had a public health rationale (public health is the CDC’s main responsibility) still made it “normal” enough to  to qualify as authorized but unlawful. True, it was unusually broad, and had a dubious legal rationale. But broad measures – may with dubious legal rationales – have become common during the Covid pandemic.

In addition, it’s worth emphasizing, once again, that the policy had the backing of the White House! If the support of successive presidents of different parties and widely divergent ideologies doesn’t count as “authorization” (even if still unlawful), I’m hard-pressed to figure out what does.

This case is going to be reviewed by the Federal Circuit on appeal. Perhaps it might eventually even get to the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, the issue of whether eviction moratoria qualify as takings is likely to also be addressed in cases challenging state and local moratoria. In many such situations, there is no question that the moratorium had legislative authorization. Thus, courts will have to fully consider the takings claims on the merits.

The federal eviction moratorium did not achieve the benefits advocates claimed for it, and its end did not lead to the “eviction tsunami” they predicted. Far from helping renters, moratoria, research by economists indicates that they lead to increases in the cost and declines in the availability of housing.

There may be a case for public assistance to renters (especially poor ones) during recessions or other times of crisis. But, if so, it is better for the government to subsidize rent than to try to foist the cost on landlords. If officials nonetheless insist on imposing eviction moratoria, they should have to pay takings compensation for it.

The post Federal Court of Claims Rejects Takings Claims Against CDC Eviction Moratorium appeared first on Reason.com.

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

LAPD’s Militarized Response to Peaceful Abortion Protests Makes the Case for Police Reform—Again


A police officer with the Los Angeles Police Department aims non-lethal projectiles into a crowd

Despite promises of reform after the city’s poor response to Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020, video of police violence at recent pro-abortion protests in Los Angeles shows that Los Angeles police have not yet changed their practices.

After pro-abortion activists took to streets around the U.S. to protest the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in late June, videos have circulated on social media showing police in Los Angeles treating protesters like enemy combatants.

Armed with riot gear and brandishing rubber-bullet guns, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) mobilized rapidly in response to pro-abortion protests near the city’s federal courthouse from June 24–27. Activists and journalists claim excessive use of physical force was rampant, with officers using batons against peaceful protesters.

The LAPD has maintained that it did not use force against peaceful protesters. “The vast majority of those involved [in pro-abortion protests] were peaceful and law abiding, however, a much smaller group of individuals took to the streets with the intention of creating chaos and destruction,” the LAPD said in a June 27 statement. “The Los Angeles Police Department has the distinction of facilitating First Amendment Rights for all Angelinos. Equally the Department will enforce the law when individuals engage in violence,” the statement continued.

While there were violent actors present at the protests, including one man who attacked police with a torch, videos shared online appear to show police using force against nonviolent protesters, including those trying to deescalate the situation. In one clip that received particular attention on social media, LAPD officers seemingly shoved Full House actress Jodie Sweetin to the pavement as she tried to defuse a confrontation between police and protesters on a Los Angeles freeway.

In another video, LAPD officers appeared to keep bystanders from providing water to a protester who had his head and arm repeatedly slammed into the ground by police.

Police also reportedly targeted journalists, even when they presented their press credentials and explicitly identified themselves. One clip seems to show police officers hitting reporter Tina Desiree Berg and shoving her to the ground, even after she showed her press badge:

Back in May, when Politico released a leaked draft Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, protesters were also met with violence from LAPD officers.

The LAPD’s response to Black Lives Matter protests in June 2020 was also subject to criticism over poor planning, disorganization, and several instances of excessive force. An investigative report commissioned by the Los Angeles City Council found that “those arrested for curfew were detained and handcuffed for hours, without water or bathroom breaks, before being transported to the jail facility for booking.”

City officials promised reform following protests in summer 2020. In response to public outcry, the LAPD updated many of its policies on managing crowds and respecting protesters and journalists. Police reform has also remained an important issue in Los Angeles elections, with both major candidates for Los Angeles mayor, businessman and former president of the Los Angeles Police Commission Rick Caruso and U.S. Representative Karen Bass (D–Calif.), promising to implement further changes to the LAPD’s practices without “defunding” the department. The Bass campaign includes police reform as a key tenet of her public safety policy. 

For activists and local observers, the police department’s approach to these recent protests shows the failure of reform efforts. “It’s a little less than two years since [the LAPD] changed its policy on how it treats non-city credentialed press after they roughed up [reporter Lexis Olivier-Rey] in 2020,” tweeted James Queally, a crime reporter for the Los Angeles Times. “Pretty clear from this video they’re not following it.”

The post LAPD's Militarized Response to Peaceful Abortion Protests Makes the Case for Police Reform—Again appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/MyN4F0q
via IFTTT

Federal Court of Claims Rejects Takings Claims Against CDC Eviction Moratorium


Eviction Moratorium

It went almost unnoticed amidst the dramatic legal developments at the Supreme Court. But, on May 17, US Court of Claims – the trial court that hears takings claims against the federal government – rejected a takings claim against the federal eviction moratorium, that had earlier been struck down the Supreme Court as beyond the powers of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which had enacted and reenacted it at the behest of first the Trump White House and later Biden. The takings case continued even after the moratorium ended, because the plaintiff property owners still sought compensation for the losses they suffered during the roughly 11-month period that the moratorium was in effect before the Supreme Court invalidated it.

In a post written when the takings lawsuit was first filed, I explained why the argument that eviction moratoria qualify as takings requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment was boosted by the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid:

A key reason why such claims faced bleak prospects [before] is that Supreme Court precedent made it very difficult for property owners to prevail in a takings case if the government imposed a merely “temporary” physical occupation of their land. It was often difficult to tell the difference between a temporary occupation and a permanent one. But the CDC had a strong argument that the eviction moratorium was temporary, because each successive extension of the order included a specific time limit, generally only a few weeks in the future.

Cedar Point changes that. Now, at least a as a general rule, “a physical appropriation is a taking whether it is permanent or temporary.” This makes potential takings challenges to the CDC order much stronger. A moratorium on evictions in situations where the property owner would otherwise have a right to remove the tenant pretty clearly imposes at least a temporary physical occupation against the owner’s will.

The Court of Claims ruling didn’t reject this reasoning. Instead, it ruled against the plaintiffs because the eviction moratorium was never properly authorized by Congress. Ironically, the Supreme Court’s ruling against the legality of the CDC’s policy actually helped the agency in the takings case:

To assert a viable takings claim against the United States, the government action in
issue must be duly authorized by Congress. See Del-Rio DrillingPrograms, In c. v. United States, 146 F.3d 1358, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Ct. Cl. 19 78) (“a [T]ucker Act suit does not lie for an executive taking not authorized by Congress, expressly or by implication”)… Where, as here, a federal agency’s actions are not authorized, the actions “may be enjoinable, but they do not constitute [a] taking effective to vest some kind of title in the government and entitlement to just compensation in the owner or former owner.” Del-Rio,146 F.3dat1362….

Addressing the CDC’s reliance upon the Public Health Service Act to support the
nationwide residential eviction moratorium at issue in this case, the Supreme Court characterized the government’ s arguments as “breathtaking” and “unprecedented,” explaining: “It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority that it asserts.” Alabama Ass ‘n of Realtors,_ U.S. at _ , 141 S. Ct. at 2486, 2489 …. Vacating the stay of the district court’s ruling that the CDC lacked congressional authority to issue the eviction moratorium, the Supreme Court concluded: “If a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must specifically authorize it…”

This result strikes me as perverse. Under the doctrine that only “authorized” government actions can qualify as takings, officials can get away with denying compensation if their policies were otherwise illegal. I can understand refusing to require taxpayers to pay compensation for the actions of rogue low-level officials acting on their own (so long as victims can sue the officials directly, as sadly often is not the case). But the eviction moratorium wasn’t undertaken by a few low-level miscreants. It was adopted at the behest of two successive presidents of the United States! That should be enough to qualify as official action requiring takings compensation (if what was done counts as a taking otherwise, of course).

That said, I recognize that the distinction between “authorized” and “unauthorized” government actions has a long history in takings precedent. The Court of Claims couldn’t simply overrule it all.

But, as Judge Armando Bonilla recognized in his opinoin, the precedent does distinguish “between conduct that is ‘unauthorized’ and conduct that is authorized but nonetheless unlawful.” The latter can still give rise to takings compensation. One way to distinguish between “unauthorized” and “authorized but unlawful” conduct is that the latter falls within the  “normal duties” of the officials in question. The Court of Claims ruled that the sweeping nature of the eviction moratorium made it abnormal.

To my mind, the fact that the measure had a public health rationale (public health is the CDC’s main responsibility) still made it “normal” enough to  to qualify as authorized but unlawful. True, it was unusually broad, and had a dubious legal rationale. But broad measures – may with dubious legal rationales – have become common during the Covid pandemic.

In addition, it’s worth emphasizing, once again, that the policy had the backing of the White House! If the support of successive presidents of different parties and widely divergent ideologies doesn’t count as “authorization” (even if still unlawful), I’m hard-pressed to figure out what does.

This case is going to be reviewed by the Federal Circuit on appeal. Perhaps it might eventually even get to the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, the issue of whether eviction moratoria qualify as takings is likely to also be addressed in cases challenging state and local moratoria. In many such situations, there is no question that the moratorium had legislative authorization. Thus, courts will have to fully consider the takings claims on the merits.

The federal eviction moratorium did not achieve the benefits advocates claimed for it, and its end did not lead to the “eviction tsunami” they predicted. Far from helping renters, moratoria, research by economists indicates that they lead to increases in the cost and declines in the availability of housing.

There may be a case for public assistance to renters (especially poor ones) during recessions or other times of crisis. But, if so, it is better for the government to subsidize rent than to try to foist the cost on landlords. If officials nonetheless insist on imposing eviction moratoria, they should have to pay takings compensation for it.

The post Federal Court of Claims Rejects Takings Claims Against CDC Eviction Moratorium appeared first on Reason.com.

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

Is America Heading for a National Divorce?


Statue of Liberty in flames

In this week’s July 4 edition of The Reason Roundtable, editors Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and special guest Christian Britschgi ruminate on the so-called Disunited States.

1:24 – The current conversation surrounding “National Divorce”

37:55 – Weekly Listener Question:

Where does Supreme Court legitimacy come from, and if it was lost, how does it get it back? Is the only cure to New Deal–era judicial activism yet more judicial activism today to rein in the Commerce Clause? Does this enhance its legitimacy because they are being faithful to the Constitution; or does that illegitimate the court because it upends the present order and is wildly unpopular?

41:52 – How the editors spent July 4, and “libertarian Festivus”

This week’s links:

“Once Again, the Firework Cops Failed To Stop People From Celebrating Freedom With a Boom,” by Christian Britschgi

“3 Myths About American Decline,” by Nick Gillespie

“70 Percent of Republicans and Democrats Agree: The Other Side Are ‘Bullies,’” by Christian Britschgi

“America’s Founders Raged Against Qualified Immunity, Trade Restrictions, and Anti-Immigrant Policies,” by Eric Boehm

“Randy Barnett: Abortion, Guns, and the Future of the Supreme Court,” by Nick Gillespie

“Inside the Mises Caucus Takeover of the Libertarian Party,” by Zach Weissmueller, Nick Gillespie, and Danielle Thompson

“Confidence in U.S. Institutions Down; Average at New Low,” by Jeffrey M. Jones

“Spurred by the Supreme Court, a Nation Divides Along a Red-Blue Axis,” by Jonathan Weisman

Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today’s sponsors:

  • We all want to make sure our family is protected in a medical emergency. What many of us don’t realize is that health insurance won’t always cover the full amount of an emergency medical flight. Even with comprehensive coverage, you could get hit with high deductibles and co-pays. That’s why an AirMedCare Network membership is so important. As a member, if an emergency arises, you won’t see a bill for air medical transport when flown by an AMCN provider. Best of all, a membership covers your entire household for as little as $85 a year. AirMedCare Network providers are called upon to transport more than 100,000 patients a year. This is coverage no family should be without. Now, as a listener of our show, you’ll get up to a fifty dollar Visa or Amazon Gift Card with a new membership. Simply visit AirMedCareNetwork.com/reason and use offer code REASON.
  • Whenever you look for news, you may feel forced to choose between echo chambers in mainstream media and conspiracy-obsessed alternative media. That’s why you should check out The Lost Debate. It’s a podcast and YouTube show for political eclectics who want to escape their media bubbles and engage in good faith with ideas from across the political spectrum. The Lost Debate is hosted by: Ravi Gupta – a former staffer for Obama and school principal who founded Arena, an organization that has trained thousands of campaign staffers and helped elect hundreds of candidates Cory Bradford – a political organizer from the Deep South turned Tik Tok star, who once hosted a FOX News radio show. And Rikki Schlott – a Gen Z New York Post columnist and libertarian fighting to protect free speech. They cover the latest news, ideas, and trends that mainstream media overlooks. Instead of being at each other’s throats, they focus on bringing new perspectives to the table in constructive debates that sound less like crossfire and more like discussions between real people. Join the conversation… check out The Lost Debate today! New episodes drop twice a week Find The Lost Debate on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your shows!

Audio production by Ian Keyser

Assistant production by Hunt Beaty

Music: “Angeline,” by The Brothers Steve

The post Is America Heading for a National Divorce? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/SXa1pgv
via IFTTT

Brittney Griner’s Russian Detention Is a Reminder of What Happens When You Declare War on Drugs


WNBA player Brittney Griner

WNBA player Brittney Griner penned a letter to President Joe Biden on Monday, asking that he not “forget” about her and other American detainees in Russia. Griner has been detained in Russia since February 17 following her arrest for allegedly carrying cannabis oil in her luggage through a Moscow airport.

“As I sit here in a Russian prison, alone with my thoughts and without the protection of my wife, family, friends, Olympic jersey or any accomplishments, I’m terrified I might be here forever,” Griner wrote.

She continued: “On the 4th of July, our family normally honors the service of those who fought for our freedom, including my father who is a Vietnam War Veteran….It hurts thinking about how I usually celebrate this day because freedom means something completely different to me this year.”

Griner’s trial began on Monday. According to Russian state media, officials claim that the Phoenix Mercury center “bought two cartridges for personal use, which contained 0.252 grams and 0.45 grams of hash oil” to Russia in February. Griner faces up to a 10-year prison sentence if convicted.

In May, U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Sullivan stated that Griner was wrongfully detained. He wrote that “wrongful detention as a bargaining chip is a threat to the safety of everyone traveling and living abroad.“

National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson echoed the sentiment on Monday, saying that “President Biden has been clear about the need to see all U.S. nationals who are held hostage or wrongfully detained abroad released, including Brittney Griner. The U.S. government continues to work aggressively—using every available means—to bring her home.”

In her letter, Griner called on Biden to do more to free her and other American detainees from Russian detention. “Please do all you can to bring us home. I voted for the first time in 2020 and I voted for you. I believe in you. I still have so much good to do with my freedom that you can help restore,” she wrote. “I realize you are dealing with so much, but please don’t forget about me and the other American detainees. Please do all you can to bring us home.”

While Griner’s arrest and detention are possibly politically motivated—her arrest came just days before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and her trial takes place as international sanctions continue to weigh on the Kremlin—the case highlights the more general issues that come with harsh drug laws. The war on drugs creates illicit markets for targeted substances, rather than eliminating them. Punitive drug laws empower overzealous state actors to harass, assault, and violate the rights of people suspected or convicted of drug possession. Despite the nonviolent, essentially unharmful nature of many drug crimes, individuals like Griner are subject to outsized punishment. Griner is wrongfully detained. So is every individual imprisoned on petty drug possession charges, regardless of his or her importance on the international stage.

“I miss my wife! I miss my family! I miss my teammates! It kills me to know they are suffering so much right now,” Griner wrote. “I am grateful for whatever you can do at this moment to get me home.”

Griner has been trapped in Russia for over four months. With fewer than 1 percent of Russian trials ending in acquittal, she will likely be trapped in the country for much longer if the Biden administration cannot negotiate her release.

The post Brittney Griner's Russian Detention Is a Reminder of What Happens When You Declare War on Drugs appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/DhLywR1
via IFTTT

Death Toll Rises To 7 After Cross-Dressing 4th Of July Shooting Suspect Taken Into Custody

Death Toll Rises To 7 After Cross-Dressing 4th Of July Shooting Suspect Taken Into Custody

The death toll in Monday’s 4th of July parade shooting in Highland Park, Illinois has risen to seven, after more than 70 shots were fired into the crowd.

According to a Tuesday statement by police, the shooter – believed to be Robert Crimo III – was able to initially evade capture by dressing as a woman to blend into the fleeing crowd.

During a Tuesday morning press conference, Christopher Covelli, Lake County Major Crime Task Force spokesman, said that 21-year-old Robert “Bobby” Crimo III purchased the rifle used in the mass shooting through legal means. He was arrested approximately eight hours after the shooting, while a second gun was found in his car following the arrest.

According to Highland Park Police Commander Chris O’Neill, the gunman was perched on a rooftop and was “very difficult to see,” adding that the rifle was recovered at the scene, along with a ladder attached to the building.

Crimo reportedly planned the attack weeks in advance according to police (or anyone who watched his music video depicting a mass shooting). There is no indication that the shooting was racially motivated.

Crimo, who goes by the name Bobby, was an aspiring rapper with the stage name Awake the Rapper, posting on social media dozens videos and songs, some ominous and violent.

In one animated video since taken down by YouTube, Crimo raps about armies “walking in darkness” as a drawing appears of a man pointing a rifle, a body on the ground and another figure with hands up in the distance. –Press Herald

Federal agents are reviewing his internet footprint – while a preliminary examination of his internet history suggests he was researching mass killings, a law enforcement official said.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/05/2022 – 16:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/a4Y9yqg Tyler Durden

Is America Heading for a National Divorce?


Statue of Liberty in flames

In this week’s July 4 edition of The Reason Roundtable, editors Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and special guest Christian Britschgi ruminate on the so-called Disunited States.

1:24 – The current conversation surrounding “National Divorce”

37:55 – Weekly Listener Question:

Where does Supreme Court legitimacy come from, and if it was lost, how does it get it back? Is the only cure to New Deal–era judicial activism yet more judicial activism today to rein in the Commerce Clause? Does this enhance its legitimacy because they are being faithful to the Constitution; or does that illegitimate the court because it upends the present order and is wildly unpopular?

41:52 – How the editors spent July 4, and “libertarian Festivus”

This week’s links:

“Once Again, the Firework Cops Failed To Stop People From Celebrating Freedom With a Boom,” by Christian Britschgi

“3 Myths About American Decline,” by Nick Gillespie

“70 Percent of Republicans and Democrats Agree: The Other Side Are ‘Bullies,’” by Christian Britschgi

“America’s Founders Raged Against Qualified Immunity, Trade Restrictions, and Anti-Immigrant Policies,” by Eric Boehm

“Randy Barnett: Abortion, Guns, and the Future of the Supreme Court,” by Nick Gillespie

“Inside the Mises Caucus Takeover of the Libertarian Party,” by Zach Weissmueller, Nick Gillespie, and Danielle Thompson

“Confidence in U.S. Institutions Down; Average at New Low,” by Jeffrey M. Jones

“Spurred by the Supreme Court, a Nation Divides Along a Red-Blue Axis,” by Jonathan Weisman

Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today’s sponsors:

  • We all want to make sure our family is protected in a medical emergency. What many of us don’t realize is that health insurance won’t always cover the full amount of an emergency medical flight. Even with comprehensive coverage, you could get hit with high deductibles and co-pays. That’s why an AirMedCare Network membership is so important. As a member, if an emergency arises, you won’t see a bill for air medical transport when flown by an AMCN provider. Best of all, a membership covers your entire household for as little as $85 a year. AirMedCare Network providers are called upon to transport more than 100,000 patients a year. This is coverage no family should be without. Now, as a listener of our show, you’ll get up to a fifty dollar Visa or Amazon Gift Card with a new membership. Simply visit AirMedCareNetwork.com/reason and use offer code REASON.
  • Whenever you look for news, you may feel forced to choose between echo chambers in mainstream media and conspiracy-obsessed alternative media. That’s why you should check out The Lost Debate. It’s a podcast and YouTube show for political eclectics who want to escape their media bubbles and engage in good faith with ideas from across the political spectrum. The Lost Debate is hosted by: Ravi Gupta – a former staffer for Obama and school principal who founded Arena, an organization that has trained thousands of campaign staffers and helped elect hundreds of candidates Cory Bradford – a political organizer from the Deep South turned Tik Tok star, who once hosted a FOX News radio show. And Rikki Schlott – a Gen Z New York Post columnist and libertarian fighting to protect free speech. They cover the latest news, ideas, and trends that mainstream media overlooks. Instead of being at each other’s throats, they focus on bringing new perspectives to the table in constructive debates that sound less like crossfire and more like discussions between real people. Join the conversation… check out The Lost Debate today! New episodes drop twice a week Find The Lost Debate on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your shows!

Audio production by Ian Keyser

Assistant production by Hunt Beaty

Music: “Angeline,” by The Brothers Steve

The post Is America Heading for a National Divorce? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/SXa1pgv
via IFTTT

Crude Crashes, Yield Curve Inverts, Bonds & The Dollar Surge

Crude Crashes, Yield Curve Inverts, Bonds & The Dollar Surge

With July 4th hangovers, America came back to work focused on growth scares, Fed reaction-functions, and shrugging off inflation anxiety. The dollar roared higher on euro weakness (because ECB is scared to hike as aggressively as The Fed as the European economy looks like its collapsing). Oil and bond yields plunged on recession fears – and the yield curve inverted. Breakevens were battered as inflation fears fade (sparking a dovish shift in rate-hike trajectory which helped send growthy stocks soaring in anticipation of Fed rate-cuts and QE), and gold was clobbered on the soaring dollar.

The market is now pricing in less than 7 more rate-hikes (having peaked at over 12 more) and almost 4 subsequent rate-cuts in 2023…

Source: Bloomberg

With a 50% chance of a rate-cut happening in Q1 2023…

Source: Bloomberg

And as that dovishness was priced in, so stocks rebounded as Europe closed. The Nasdaq screamed from down 2% to up over 1.6%, the S&P was down over 2% at its lows and rallied back into the green in the last hour. Small Caps stalled at overnight highs…

Energy stocks were the hardest hit but only Tech and Discretionary stocks made gains on the day…

Source: Bloomberg

However, credit markets were not buying this bounce in stocks…

Source: Bloomberg

Treasury yields were lower on the day with a massive 20bps swing from high to low on the day…

Source: Bloomberg

All of which inverted 2s10s for the 3rd time this year…

Source: Bloomberg

And inverted 2s5s for the first time since the 2020 COVID lockdowns…

Source: Bloomberg

As inflation fears abate, Breakevens tumbled back to Oct 2021 levels…

Source: Bloomberg

The Euro was routed to near parity and 20 year lows against the dollar…

Source: Bloomberg

Which smashed the Dollar Index back nears its COVID Lockdown crisis safe0-haven spike highs (if biggest one day jump since June 2020)…

Source: Bloomberg

Cryptos rallied today, in sync with Nasdaq’s gains, erasing all the early losses…

Source: Bloomberg

As the dollar ripped, gold was clubbed like a baby seal back below $1800 to its lowest level since Oct 2021…

Copper crashed to its lowest since Nov 2020, which along with Gold implies a dramatically lower 10Y Yield…

Source: Bloomberg

Worst day for WTI since the world locked down in March 2020 and back below $100 for the first time since May 11…

Wholesale gasoline prices crashed alongside, back to $3.27 at their lows…

US National gas prices are down 21 straight days…

Source: Bloomberg

Finally, however, the falling gas prices are not helping President Biden’s approval rating…

Source: Bloomberg

Perhaps it’s not just about that after all?

Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/05/2022 – 16:01

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/MXCJd3u Tyler Durden

Is Saudi Arabia Exaggerating Its Oil Production Potential?

Is Saudi Arabia Exaggerating Its Oil Production Potential?

Authored by Simon Watkins via OilPrice.com,

  • For years, Saudi Arabia has made some pretty hefty claims about its oil potential.

  • It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that the Kingdom may be stretching the truth a little too far.

  • Analysts are now beginning to doubt that Saudi Arabia even has the reserves it says it has.

For many years now, Saudi Arabia has been wildly exaggerating every metric connected to its oil business, from how much crude it can produce to its level of reserves and everything in between, as analyzed in depth in my first book on the oil sector in 2015 and the latest one in 2021. Why does it lie so much and so often about these figures? Because without the power it has in the world directly associated with its crude oil production, spare capacity, and reserves it has no real power at all, so enormously exaggerating each of these figures is geared towards puffing itself up in terms of its geopolitical importance. The problem Saudi Arabia has right now, however, is that the U.S. and all other developed market countries whose economies are suffering under the weight of ongoing high oil prices are pressuring Riyadh to deliver on these claims, in order to bring these oil prices down. If Saudi Arabia had not been lying all these years about the amount of oil it can produce then it will not have a problem, but it has been, so it does.

To the figures themselves, then, and firstly, Saudi Arabia’s crude oil reserves figures. At the beginning of 1989, Saudi Arabia claimed proven oil reserves of 170 billion barrels, but only a year later, and without the discovery of any major new oil fields, the official reserves estimate had somehow increased by 51.2 percent, to 257 billion barrels. Shortly thereafter, it increased again to just over 266 billion barrels, a level that persisted until a slight increase in 2017 to just over 268 billion barrels. On the other side of the supply-demand equation, from 1973 to the end of last week, Saudi Arabia pumped an average of 8.192 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil. Therefore, taking 1989 as a starting point (with 170 billion of crude oil reserves officially claimed in that year), in the subsequent 32 years Saudi Arabia has physically pumped and removed forever from its oil fields, a total of 95,682,560,000 barrels of crude oil. Over the same period, there has been no significant discovery of major new oil fields. Despite this, Saudi Arabia’s crude oil reserves have not gone down, but rather have actually gone up. This is a mathematical impossibility. 

Secondly, Saudi Arabia’s spare capacity figures, which are a function of Riyadh not just lying about the numbers outright but also engaging in semantic trickery involving the use of various oil market terms interchangeably, despite their not meaning the same thing at all. To be clear here: the official Energy Information Administration (EIA) definition is very specific about what constitutes ‘spare capacity’ in the global oil markets, and it is as follows, directly quoted from the EIA rules: “Spare capacity is production that can be brought online within 30 days and sustained for at least 90 days.” That is it; that is what spare capacity is, no more and no less. However, Saudi Arabia includes within its own use of the term ‘spare capacity’ every drop of crude oil that it can get hold of: including oil supplies in storage, supplies that can be withheld from contracts and re-directed into those stored supplies, and any oil that it can buy through brokers in the spot market and then sell on as its own. Exactly this semantic trickery was used to cover up the actual supply shortfalls in the aftermath of the September 2019 attacks by the Iran-backed Houthis on Saudi’s Khurais and Abqaiq facilities and later attacks. 

In reality, as written in the 2015 book: “The country has often stated that it has a spare capacity of between 2-2.5 million barrels per day (mbpd), with the capability to ramp up its production to about 12.5 mbpd in the event of unexpected disruptions elsewhere. However, it is very unlikely that it could pump at these levels for a sustained period of time, and this idea has been supported by comments from Gulf officials at OPEC, which stated in the midst of Iraqi supply fears that Saudi Arabia could ramp up output by another 1-1.3 mbpd in a best-case scenario. Officials also mentioned that production of 11.5 mbpd is untested and could only be maintained for a very short period and that, in any event, higher production would be very difficult and would require producing heavy crudes.” Nothing meaningful has changed since then. 

And thirdly, the ludicrously-inflated ‘production’ figures that Saudi Arabia has been bandying around for years and which appear to be from the Hans Christian Andersen School of Oil Economics.  As highlighted above and back in the 2015 book, despite all the flim-flam and general nonsense from the Saudis about being able to ‘produce’ 11 million bpd or 12 million with ease, and plans to ‘increase this’ to 13 million bpd, Saudi Arabia has actually produced from 1973 to the end of last week, an average of 8.192 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil; that is it. Moreover, as analyzed as long ago as the 2015 book, it has only ever – in the history of the world, up to and including the end of last week – managed to produce 11 million bpd and sustain it for a month on two occasions. Even when Saudi was at almost existential points in its recent history – such as the all or nothing 2014-2016 Oil Price War it instigated to destroy or disable the then-nascent U.S. shale oil sector, or when former U.S. President Donald Trump threatened withdrawal of military support for it if it did not increase oil production – Saudi still could not increase oil production above just 10.5 million bpd for long. 

It is consequently of no surprise whatsoever that OPEC+ last week decided not to increase its production over and above what had previously been agreed – because it simply cannot do so. Perhaps this was why neither the Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MbS), and the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan (MbZ), agreed to take telephone calls from U.S. President, Joe Biden, after all: not because they were seeking to marginalize him (although that is more than likely true as well) but because they could offer him nothing and have been caught out in a lie. This latter inference can be taken from subsequent remarks – relayed to the world last week by the French President, Emmanuel Macron – that he had a call with MbZ: “He told me two things. I’m at a maximum, maximum [oil production capacity], this is what he claims,” said the French President. “And then he said [the] Saudis can increase by [only] 150 [thousand barrels per day], maybe a little bit more, but they don’t have huge capacities before six months’ time,” Macron concluded. 

Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/05/2022 – 15:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/GkW0HUq Tyler Durden

Brittney Griner’s Russian Detention Is a Reminder of What Happens When You Declare War on Drugs


WNBA player Brittney Griner

WNBA player Brittney Griner penned a letter to President Joe Biden on Monday, asking that he not “forget” about her and other American detainees in Russia. Griner has been detained in Russia since February 17 following her arrest for allegedly carrying cannabis oil in her luggage through a Moscow airport.

“As I sit here in a Russian prison, alone with my thoughts and without the protection of my wife, family, friends, Olympic jersey or any accomplishments, I’m terrified I might be here forever,” Griner wrote.

She continued: “On the 4th of July, our family normally honors the service of those who fought for our freedom, including my father who is a Vietnam War Veteran….It hurts thinking about how I usually celebrate this day because freedom means something completely different to me this year.”

Griner’s trial began on Monday. According to Russian state media, officials claim that the Phoenix Mercury center “bought two cartridges for personal use, which contained 0.252 grams and 0.45 grams of hash oil” to Russia in February. Griner faces up to a 10-year prison sentence if convicted.

In May, U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Sullivan stated that Griner was wrongfully detained. He wrote that “wrongful detention as a bargaining chip is a threat to the safety of everyone traveling and living abroad.“

National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson echoed the sentiment on Monday, saying that “President Biden has been clear about the need to see all U.S. nationals who are held hostage or wrongfully detained abroad released, including Brittney Griner. The U.S. government continues to work aggressively—using every available means—to bring her home.”

In her letter, Griner called on Biden to do more to free her and other American detainees from Russian detention. “Please do all you can to bring us home. I voted for the first time in 2020 and I voted for you. I believe in you. I still have so much good to do with my freedom that you can help restore,” she wrote. “I realize you are dealing with so much, but please don’t forget about me and the other American detainees. Please do all you can to bring us home.”

While Griner’s arrest and detention are possibly politically motivated—her arrest came just days before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and her trial takes place as international sanctions continue to weigh on the Kremlin—the case highlights the more general issues that come with harsh drug laws. The war on drugs creates illicit markets for targeted substances, rather than eliminating them. Punitive drug laws empower overzealous state actors to harass, assault, and violate the rights of people suspected or convicted of drug possession. Despite the nonviolent, essentially unharmful nature of many drug crimes, individuals like Griner are subject to outsized punishment. Griner is wrongfully detained. So is every individual imprisoned on petty drug possession charges, regardless of his or her importance on the international stage.

“I miss my wife! I miss my family! I miss my teammates! It kills me to know they are suffering so much right now,” Griner wrote. “I am grateful for whatever you can do at this moment to get me home.”

Griner has been trapped in Russia for over four months. With fewer than 1 percent of Russian trials ending in acquittal, she will likely be trapped in the country for much longer if the Biden administration cannot negotiate her release.

The post Brittney Griner's Russian Detention Is a Reminder of What Happens When You Declare War on Drugs appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/DhLywR1
via IFTTT