supreme court

Feb. 25 (UPI) — The Supreme Court‘s ruling to limit President Donald Trump‘s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs is forcing the administration to look to different statutory authorities to carry out its trade policy.

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the president could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to generate revenue through tariffs. While this caused Trump to seek another avenue to impose tariffs, landing on a global 15% rate through Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, his plans to use tariffs to negotiate trade deals have not changed.

The decision impacts a great deal of the tariffs Trump has enacted during his second term, Purba Mukerji, professor of economics at Connecticut College, told UPI. She said he has been using the IEEPA to give himself “flexibility” in trade negotiations since returning to the White House.

Trump expressed disappointment in the high court’s decision on Friday but Mukerji said it was expected by economists and is unlikely to disrupt the president’s broader economic policy. Tariffs on steel and aluminum, as well as those that target certain sectors, are likely to remain in place.

U.S. markets have not strongly reacted to the Supreme Court ruling in either direction. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by less than a point on Monday, only to rebound on Tuesday. The S&P 500 followed a similar path.

The yield on 10-year U.S. Treasury notes has reflected some uncertainty, though concerns about AI displacing workers, global tensions and broader trade concerns may be factors as well.

“For the business leaders who make decisions, for importers and exporters and foreign countries that are dealing with us in their trade negotiations, this is not a surprise,” Mukerji said. “So I don’t think there will be any long-lasting consequences of this particular Supreme Court ruling, except to put the whole trade negotiations and trade policy on much firmer footing.”

Consumers hoping to see prices come down are unlikely to see significant changes from the ruling either, Mukerji added.

“As far as consumer prices go, I am encouraged by the fact that we didn’t see the rise in consumer prices that was expected in all sectors coming out of tariffs,” she said. “I don’t expect that to be coming down in the future. I don’t think much will change on the ground.”

A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published earlier this month reports that 94% of Trump’s tariffs imposed last year were paid by U.S. entities and consumers during the first eight months of 2025.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported in December that it had collected $200 billion in tariff revenue. The largest portion of tariffs collected was on imports from China, a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond said. The report is based on data from the U.S. Treasury Department and Census Bureau.

We Pay The Tariffs, a coalition of more than 800 small businesses, is circulating a petition to call for the federal government to refund businesses due to the tariffs being ruled unlawful.

“A legal victory is meaningless without actual relief for the businesses that paid these tariffs,” Dan Anthony, executive director of the organization, said in a statement. “The administration’s only responsible course of action now is to establish a fast, efficient and automatic refund process that returns tariff money to the businesses that paid it.”

It remains unclear what will happen to the revenue the court ruled has been unlawfully collected. The Supreme Court did not address refunds for tariffs paid.

Mukerji said reimbursing collected tariffs poses some practical challenges. She explained that while the United States maintains a database of who has paid what tariffs, it often shows a delivery company, like FedEx, as the entity that made the payment, not the importer who in reality incurred the costs.

“So you kind of have to reimburse FedEx, who then turns around and reimburses the importer,” she said. “That is a mess because then we depend on the account keeping, say by FedEx, so it becomes more complicated there.”

There is also a matter of fairness as some wholesalers pass the costs of tariffs on to retailers, who then pass them on to consumers, Mukerji said.

Following the court’s decision, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the Trump administration will look to Section 122, as well as Section 301 of the Trade Act and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 tariff authorities to pursue “virtually unchanged tariff revenue” this year.

These statutes notably do not require congressional approval to impose tariffs like the Supreme Court affirmed the IEEPA did.

Section 122 gives the president the authority to impose a maximum 15% tariff for up to 150 days. Tariffs imposed under this authority would remain in effect into July at the latest.

Section 301 of the Trade Act gives the president the authority to impose tariffs in response to unfair trade practices, theft of intellectual property and discriminatory policies by trade partners. An investigation by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative must be completed to determine if there is a violation and allow for the use of Section 301 authority.

Trump’s broad tariffs on China were issued in 2018 under the authority of Section 301.

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act allows the president to impose tariffs and other trade restrictions on imports if they are determined to threaten national security. This must be preceded by an investigation by the Commerce Department into the potential of a threat.

Trump used Section 232 to place tariffs on steel and aluminum during his first term.

While President Joe Biden peeled back on many of Trump’s policies when he came into office, he kept some trade policies like these largely intact and reinforced them through investigations.

For Section 301 tariffs, Biden allowed the required four-year review to continue throughout his term, ultimately raising tariffs on electric vehicles from China as well as some semiconductors, critical minerals and other sectors.

For Section 232 tariffs, Biden kept Trump’s tariff framework largely in place and continued to use the national security justification to keep tariffs as a point of negotiations.

“Biden actually made them stronger,” Mukerji said. “Most of them continued under Biden and they were extended and made even stronger. So these trade policies now have the strength of a solid foundation. These stand on the shoulders of investigations so they have this lasting power.”

The Supreme Court’s decision has caused some ongoing negotiations to shift or pause.

Earlier this week, a planned meeting with India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Washington, D.C., was put on hold. The sides were planning to meet for three days to discuss an interim trade deal that would likely go into effect in April.

The European Union’s parliament canceled a vote to ratify a trade deal with the United States on Monday in response to the Supreme Court decision and Trump’s subsequent new tariffs.

“A deal is a deal,” the European Commission said in a statement on Saturday. “As the United States’ largest trading partner, the EU expects the U.S. to honor its commitments set out in the Joint Statement — just as the EU stands by its commitments.”

With the Supreme Court’s decision, the Trump administration and future administrations definitively have one less tool to use when imposing tariffs. The ruling does not mark an end to Trump’s tariff plans. It only clarifies his authority to impose tariffs. Meanwhile, the president is left to negotiate trade deals under greater scrutiny.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday the U.S. Postal Service is shielded from being sued even if its employees intentionally fail to deliver the mail.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said Congress in 1946 had barred lawsuits “arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter,” and that includes mail that is stolen or misdirected by postal employees.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said the law broadly bars complaints involving lost or missing mail.

“A ‘miscarriage of mail’ includes failure of the mail to arrive at its intended destination, regardless of the carrier’s intent or where the mail goes instead,” he said.

The ruliing is a setback but not a final defeat for Lebene Konan, a Texas real estate agent who is Black. She had sued contending white postal carriers refused to deliver her mail to two houses where she rented rooms.

She did not live at either property but said she stayed there “from time to time.”

She first complained to the post office in Euless, Texas, after she learned the mail carrier had changed the listed owner on a central postal box from Konan’s name to a tenant’s name.

After two years of frustration, she sued the United States in 2022 alleging the Postal Service had intentionally and wrongly withheld her mail. She sought damages for emotional distress, a loss of rental income and for racial discrimination.

Her claim of racial bias was dismissed by a federal judge and a U.S. appeals court and did not figure in the Supreme Court’s decision.

However, the 5th Circuit Court ruled she could go forward with her suit alleging she was a victim of intentional misconduct on the part of postal employees.

The Biden and Trump administrations urged the court to hear the case and to reject lawsuits against the Postal Service based on claims of intentional wrongdoing.

They said the 5th Circuit’s ruling could “open the floodgates of litigation.” They noted the Postal Service delivers about 113 billion pieces of mail per year and receives about 335,000 complaints over lost mail and other matters.

“We hold that the postal exception covers suits against the United States for the intentional nondelivery of mail,” Thomas said. “We do not decide whether all of Konan’s claims are barred.”

Joining Thomas to limit lawsuits against the Postal Service were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the law refers to a “loss” or “miscarriage” of the mail, which suggests negligence.

“Today, the court holds that one exception — the postal exception — prevents individuals from recovering for injuries based on a postal employee’s intentional misconduct, including when an employee maliciously withholds their mail,” Sotomayor wrote.

Joining her were Justices Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who has a way of saying the quiet parts out loud in defending President Trump’s economic policies, told the truth again Friday, during a public appearance a few hours after the Supreme Court threw out most of Trump’s tariffs.

Asked about the prospects that Americans would be receiving refunds of the illegal tariffs paid since Trump imposed them in April, Bessent replied with a condescending smirk: “I get a feeling the American people won’t see it.”

A couple of things about that. One is that there doesn’t seem to be any legal question that those who paid the tariffs are entitled to refunds. In his 6-3 ruling invalidating levies imposed on imports under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA, Chief Justice John Roberts made clear that those tariffs were unconstitutional and illegal from their inception.

Therefore, there’s no excuse for the government to hold on to the money it has collected — estimated at somewhere between $135 billion and $170 billion. But Roberts didn’t state whether refunds are warranted or, if so, how they should be calculated and distributed.

Trump has dangled the prospect of tariff refunds — actually, tariff “dividend” checks of $2,000 — in front of taxpayers for months. In effect, that would mean returning to taxpayers the money that his tariffs have cost them. Bessent’s comments put paid to that promise.

Today, no one is arguing seriously that checks should be cut for taxpayers — except Illinois Gov. JB Pritzer, who demanded refund checks totalling $8.7 billion for his constituents. But that has the aroma of a campaign stunt for Pritzker, who is running for a third term and may be positioning himself for a presidential run.

By not specifying a refund process, the Supreme Court decision left a vacuum that Bessent tried to fill. In his comments, he explained why refunds will be nothing but a dream for the average American — and those comments were chilling.

First, he said, Trump has the authority to reimpose the same tariffs under different laws. Indeed, Trump has already announced that he will be imposing 15% tariffs across the board.

He also signaled that although Roberts pushed refund decisions down to the Court of International Trade, the government is poised to challenge importers’ applications for reimbursement, generating litigation that “can be dragged out for weeks, months, years.”

In other words, Bessent implied that, far from resolving the economic confusion Trump has generated through his on-again-off-again tariff policies during 2025, the court’s decision provoked Trump to inject even more uncertainty into U.S. trade relations and domestic business decisions.

That dime appeared to drop for stock market investors Monday. The markets rose modestly in a relief rally Friday after the Supreme Court released its decision, but tumbled Monday as Trump doubled down on tariffs. At the close, the Dow Jones industrial average was down by 821.91 points, or nearly 1.7%, and the Nasdaq and Standard & Poor’s 500 indices both fell by more than 1%.

Bessent didn’t mention the most important reason why American consumers are unlikely to see anything resembling a tariff refund.

Tariffs on imported products are, by any measure, a tax on domestic consumers. Economic opinion is virtually unanimous on that point. As I reported in January, the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German think tank, concluded that 96% of the 2025 Trump tariffs were paid by American importers and their domestic clients.

“The tariffs are, in the most literal sense, an own goal,” Kiel’s researchers wrote. “Americans are footing the bill.” Their conclusion was largely echoed earlier this month by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which placed the burden on American importers and consumers at “nearly 90%.”

That said, the specifics of tariff payments are in the hands of importers and retailers, which keep records of how much they’ve paid and on what products or parts. Consumers don’t normally know the numbers. (I actually received an invoice last year breaking out the tariffs charged by a Japanese retailer on a set of pens I had bought for a birthday present, but since the sum came to $12 I’m not sure that demanding a refund from the government would be worth it.)

So far, about 1,500 businesses have filed claims for refunds through the Court of International Trade. Most filed these claims to secure for themselves a position in the scrum for refunds, like music fans lining up overnight for tickets to a star’s upcoming concert.

Many of these businesses may not actually have put a number on their claim. Costco, perhaps the biggest retailer to file with the CIT, didn’t say in its Nov. 28 filing how much it thought it was owed, possibly because it was still bound to pay the tariffs until the Supreme Court issued a final decision.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which actually computes and collects the tariffs, says it will cease collecting the invalidated levies when the clock strikes 12:01 a.m. Tuesday morning.

What consumers don’t know is how much of the tariffs have been passed down to them. Some sellers decided to eat some or all of the tariffs to keep consumer prices steady. Some may have stocked up on tariff-eligible products ahead of the formal imposition of the levies.

Will retailers seek out customers who paid higher prices on products that were tariffed to hand them refunds? None has said that such an eventuality is in the cards, though it might not be surprising to see some businesses use the end of tariffs as a marketing device — you know, “We’re cutting prices on Toyotas during ‘tariff freedom month!’” etc., etc.

It’s also conceivable that retailers passed imaginary tariff costs on to their customers, putting through price increases that had nothing to do with the levies but could be blamed on them anyway.

That’s what happened after Trump imposed tariffs on washing machines, which were almost all foreign-made, in 2018. According to a 2020 survey by Federal Reserve and University of Chicago economists, the tariffs forced washing machine prices up by nearly 12%, or about $86 each. The researchers discovered, however, that prices on clothes dryers increased by about the same amount, even though they weren’t subject to the tariffs at all.

What happened? The researchers conjectured that because washers and dryers are typically sold as pairs, retailers may have simply spread the washing machine cost increase between the two products to keep their prices similar. It’s also possible that retailers, figuring that consumers would expect to pay more for tariffed washing machines and would assume the same effect held for dryers, charged more for the latter to fatten their profits. One wouldn’t expect consumer refunds in those cases.

Another imponderable is the effect of Trump’s tariffs on the U.S. consumer economy generally. The Trump tariffs cost the average American household the equivalent of a tax increase of about $1,000, the Tax Foundation has calculated.

About $600 of that sum was due to the IEEPA tariffs now struck down. But the new tariffs Trump announced after the Supreme Court ruling will raise the tariff tax for American families by $300 to $700, the Foundation reported — potentially a greater total burden than existed before the court’s action.

All of Trump’s tariffs increased the average tariff rate to 13.8%, the Foundation reckoned. The Supreme Court’s ruling reduced that to about 6% — still the highest U.S. tariff rate since 1971 — but the new 15% tariff Trump announced would raise the applied rate back to 12.1%. By law, the new tariff can remain in effect for only five months unless it’s extended by Congress. In 2022, America’s applied tariff rate was 1.5%.

Perhaps the most immediate question facing businesses is how refund claims will be administered. In his dissent to Roberts’ IEEPA decision, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that “the refund process is likely to be a ‘mess.’”

Possibly Kavanaugh’s concern was that the Court of International Trade will have to adjudicate 1,500 claims one by one. But it need not be so.

In 1998, the Supreme Court declared a Harbor Maintenance Tax on exports, based on the constitutional provision that exports can’t be taxed. Responsibility for those refunds also fell to the Court of International Trade, which established a standardized procedure for claims. Even under the streamlined system, however, the resolution of all those claims took until 2005, or seven years. And that involved only about $1 billion in claims, not the more than $130 billion at stake today.

What remains unexplained in the miasma created by Trump’s tariff policies is why he is doing this. None of his rationales has been borne out. The tariffs haven’t restored manufacturing employment in the U.S., which have fallen throughout Trump’s current term. They haven’t eliminated America’s trade deficit with the rest of the world, which has persisted since 1975 and — despite Trump’s assertions — isn’t anywhere close to an economic crisis.

As it happens, while the overall trade deficit fell modestly last year by less than $3 billion, or about one-third of 1%, most of the reduction was in services; the deficit in goods rose by $25.5 billion to a record $1.24 trillion.

All that’s left is Trump’s inclination to wield tariffs as tools of geopolitical bullying. He has raised or threatened to raise tariffs on Brazil because of that country’s criminal pursuit of former President Jair Bolsonaro for leading a coup attempt; on Switzerland because he felt dissed by a Swiss government leader; and on several European countries for thwarting his effort to annex Greenland.

None of those actions bore fruit (Bolsonaro was convicted and is currently serving a 27-year prison sentence). America’s trading partners plainly recognize that the new tariffs must expire within 150 days and can’t be renewed without action by a Congress plainly queasy about giving Trump his tariffs back after the Supreme Court took them away. They don’t seem to be taking Trump seriously.

They can tell that on tariffs, as on many other things, Trump is increasingly behaving like a lame duck, albeit one with a whim of iron. But as the stock market seemed to be telling us Monday, even a whim of iron can be very, very costly.

Feb. 24 (UPI) — Panama authorities have taken control of two ports operated by a subsidiary of a Hong Kong company, assets that came under scrutiny after President Donald Trump claimed China exerted too much influence over their operation.

Hong Kong-based conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings condemned the Monday takeover in a statement on Tuesday that said the actions of Panama were “unlawful” and raised risks to the operations, health and safety of the Balboa and Critobal terminals that its subsidiary, Panama Ports, has been operating for decades.

“None of the actions by the Panama State were advised to or coordinate with PPC,” Hutchison Holdings said.

“The Panama State is responsible for harm and damage caused by the confiscatory actions it has taken.”

On Monday morning, Panama’s official gazette published a late-January Supreme Court ruling that made final the court’s decision that the contract law granting Panama Ports Company’s concession extension to operate the ports was unconstitutional.

The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits filed challenging the contract, which was issued by the Maritime Authority of Panama on June 23, 2021. According to a statement from the Panama presidency’s office, the contract was found unconstitutional because it gave a foreign-based company broad rights that limited the state’s control over the use and management of its resources.

After the gazette was published, Panama authorities arrived at the two ports and informed representatives of the Panama Ports Company that it must cease operations, and that those who do not comply with their orders will be prosecuted.

“PPC and CKHH will continue to consult with their legal advisors regarding the ruling and forceful takeover, the purported termination of PPC’s concession and all available recourse, including additional national and international legal proceedings against the Republic of Panama and its agents and third parties colluding with them,” CK Hutchison Holdings said.

The two ports and their Hong Kong connection were thrust into the spotlight on the first day of Trump’s second presidency, when in his inaugural address he said the United States has been “treated very badly” by Panama and that “China is operating the Panama Canal.”

Trump has repeatedly made the claim since, drawing attention to the Hong Kong-based conglomerate that has operated the two ports since 1997.

Seoul shares surged more than 2 percent Tuesday to close at a fresh record high above the 5,900-point mark, driven by strong gains in technology shares. The Korean won fell against the U.S. dollar.

The benchmark Korea Composite Stock Price Index (KOSPI) advanced 123.55 points, or 2.11 percent, to finish at an all-time high of 5,969.64.

The index has extended its upward momentum in recent weeks, surpassing the 5,000-point mark for the first time on Jan. 27 and crossing 5,500 on Feb. 12. It moved above 5,800 on Friday.

Trading volume was heavy at 1.58 billion shares worth 30.73 trillion won (US$21.3 billion), with decliners outnumbering gainers 465 to 407.

Institutions bought a net 2.37 trillion won worth of stocks, offsetting net sales of 199.16 billion won by foreign investors and 2.28 trillion won by retail investors.

The rally came despite overnight losses on Wall Street.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 1.66 percent, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite declined 1.13 percent.

In Seoul, investors scooped up major chip stocks ahead of an earnings report from U.S. chipmaker Nvidia later this week, while remaining cautious over U.S. President Donald Trump‘s push to impose new tariffs after the Supreme Court struck down his original sweeping duties, analysts said.

Trump signed an executive order Friday (U.S. time) authorizing new 10 percent global tariffs that took effect Tuesday. He has also threatened to raise the rate to 15 percent, though no formal order has been issued.

“Even if the global tariffs are raised to 15 percent, there will be no major impact on the local stock market because current U.S. tariffs on Korean imports already stand at 15 percent,” an analyst at IBK Securities Co. said.

Technology and automobile stocks led the gains.

Market bellwether Samsung Electronics jumped 3.63 percent to 200,000 won, while chip giant SK hynix surged 5.68 percent to a record high of 1,005,000 won.

Top automaker Hyundai Motor rose 0.19 percent to 524,000 won, and leading battery maker LG Energy Solution gained 4.17 percent to 412,500 won.

Among decliners, shipbuilder Hanwha Ocean fell 2.79 percent to 143,100 won, and Lotte Shopping declined 1.67 percent to 111,700 won.

The Korean won was quoted at 1,442.50 won against the U.S. dollar at 3:30 p.m., down 2.5 won from the previous session.

Bond prices, which move inversely to yields, closed lower. The yield on three-year Treasurys rose 0.4 basis point to 3.158 percent, and the return on the benchmark five-year government bonds also climbed 0.5 basis point to 3.410 percent.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

Feb. 23 (UPI) — A meeting on trade negotiations between the United States and India this week has been postponed in light of Friday’s Supreme Court ruling on President Donald Trump‘s tariffs.

Officials representing the United States and India were scheduled to meet for three days in Washington, D.C., to discuss their interim trade deal but the meeting has been delayed, CNBC, the BBC and Hindustan Times reported.

India’s top trade negotiator, Darpan Jain, was slated to travel to the United States for the meeting.

India is under a 25% reciprocal tariff imposed by the United States. It was expected to be reduced to 18% as part of an interim agreement between the countries earlier this month. The sides have continued to discuss future trade plans virtually since reaching the interim deal.

The United States and India were slated to finalize the interim agreement in March with it likely to go into effect in April. The framework for the agreement noted that any changes to the deal would allow the other country to “modify its commitments.”

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump improperly applied the Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose a swath of tariffs. With those tariffs ruled unlawful, Trump announced a 15% global tariff, citing Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows a president to impose temporary tariffs.

The act allows for the president to impose tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days.

The Trump administration continues to consider new plans to continue with its tariff policy, exploring other legal routes, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a social media post.

“We will immediately shift to other proven authorities — Actions 232, 301, and 122 — to keep our tariff strategy strong,” Bessent wrote.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide on shielding energy producers from dozens of lawsuits seeking to hold them liable for costs of global climate change.

In the past decade, dozens of cities, counties and states, including California, have joined state-based lawsuits that seek billions of dollars in damages, and they have won preliminary victories in state courts.

But the Trump administration and the energy producers urged the Supreme Court to throw out all of these suits on the grounds they conflict with federal law.

“Boulder Colorado cannot make energy policy for the entire country,” lawyers for Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil said in their appeal. They urged the court to rule that “state law cannot impose the costs of global climate change on a subset of the world’s energy producers chosen by a single municipality.”

The justices will hear the case of Suncor Energy vs. Boulder County, but arguments will not be held until October.

The Biden administration had said the justices should stand aside while the lawsuits move forward in state courts, but the Trump administration filed a brief in September urging the court to intervene now.

They said the case has “vast nationwide significance,” and it should not be left to be decided state by state.

Lawyers for Boulder had urged the court against taking up the issue at an early stage of the litigation. “This is not the right time or the right case for deciding” whether municipalities can sue over the damage they have suffered.

But after weighing the issue for weeks, the court announced it will be hear the claims of the oil and gas industries.

SACRAMENTO — Every farmer knows there comes a time to thin the crop to allow the most promising plants to grow bigger and reach their potential.

The same is true in politics. And it‘s now time to cull some Democrats from the dense field of candidates for governor.

Put another way, it’s time for some lagging Democrats to step aside and provide more running room for swifter teammates in the race to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Sure, they’ve all got a constitutional right to run. But too many Democrats on the June 2 primary ballot could flip the California governor’s office to a Republican.

You’d think that Democratic candidates now plodding behind in the race — with little realistic hope of catching up — would want to avoid having that on their conscience. Party leaders, too.

Until recently, this nightmarish scenario for Democrats seemed inconceivable. After all, California hasn’t elected a Republican to statewide office for 20 years. Roughly 45% of registered voters are Democrats. Only 25% are Republicans. About 23% are independents who lean left.

But do the math. There are nine Democrats running for governor with various degrees of seriousness. There are only two major Republican contenders, plus a third lagging practically out of sight.

Remember, California has a “top two” open primary. The top two vote-getters, regardless of their party, advance to the November election. And only the top two. Write-in candidates aren’t allowed.

It’s a matter of arithmetic.

In the primary, about 60% of voters will choose a Democrat, political data expert Paul Mitchell figures. That number of voters split among nine Democratic candidates could result in all sharing smaller pieces of the pie than what the top two Republicans receive. Mitchell estimates nearly 40% of voters will side with a Republican, with just two candidates splitting most of the smaller GOP pie.

Recent polls have shown three candidates — two Republicans and one Democrat — bunched closely near the top. They’re Republican former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton, Democratic U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell from the San Francisco Bay Area, and Republican Sheriff Chad Bianco of Riverside County.

Another Democrat, former Rep. Katie Porter of Orange County, has been running close to the top three, followed by Democrat Tom Steyer, a billionaire former hedge fund investor.

It’s not likely that two Republicans will survive the primary and block a Democrat from reaching the general election. But it’s a legitimate possibility — and not worth the risk for the Democratic Party.

“How unlikely does it have to be for Democrats not to be worried?” asks Mitchell, who works primarily for Democrats. “Even if the chances are very small, the consequences could be catastrophic.”

He is constantly running primary election simulations. And last week he calculated the chances of two Republicans gaining the top slots at 18%. Most of his calculations have come out at around 10% to 12%, he says.

“I’m not trying to yell fire in a crowded theater,” Mitchell says. “But I’m trying to install a thermostat.”

He adds: “If there was ever a perfect storm when this could happen, we’re experiencing it now.”

The absence of a gubernatorial candidate heading the Democratic ticket in November, Mitchell says, would result in party damage far beyond the governor’s office.

It would lower Democratic voter turnout and probably cost the party congressional and legislative seats, and also affect ballot measures, Mitchell says.

In fact, it could jeopardize the Democrats’ chances of ousting Republicans and capturing control of the U.S. House.

So which candidates should drop out, not only to avoid embarrassment on election night but to save the party from possible disaster?

Four clearly should stay.

Swalwell has some momentum and is the leading Democrat in most polls, although his numbers are only in the teens. He’s relatively young at 45 and many voters are looking for generational change.

Porter is the leading female — with a chance to become the first woman elected California governor — and has been holding up in the polls despite showing a bad temper in a damaging TV interview last year.

Steyer has loads of his own money to spend on TV ads. But he needs a more coherent, simple message in the spots.

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan just entered the race, but shows some promise. He’s a moderate with strong Silicon Valley tech support. And he also has youth at 43.

Five others should consider bowing out.

Xavier Becerra has a great resume: Former U.S. health secretary, former California attorney general and longtime congressman. But he hasn’t shown much fire. And his message is muted.

Antonio Villaraigosa also has an impressive resume: Former Los Angeles mayor and state Assembly speaker. He’s running with a strong centrist message. But at 73, voters seem to feel his time is past.

Former state Controller Betty Yee knows every inch of state government, but lacks voter appeal.

State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond hasn’t shined in his current job and has no traction in the governor’s race.

Former legislator Ian Calderon isn’t even a blip.

What causes some candidates to stay in a race against long, even impossible odds?

“Hope springs eternal,” says longtime Democratic strategist Darry Sragow. “History is replete with races that turned around on a dime.”

And many feel obligated to their donors and endorsers, he adds.

Also, consultants often “have a vested interest” financially in keeping their clients in the game, he acknowledges.

But currently, Sragow adds, “it’s time for the Democratic Party to get its act together and weed out the field.”

“Party leaders should start cracking the whip. There’s something to be said for decisions being made behind closed doors in a ‘smoke filled room.’ The difference today is that it’s in a smoke-free room.”

The filing deadline for officially becoming a candidate is March 6. After that, a name cannot be removed from the ballot. It’s stuck there — possibly drawing just enough votes to rob another Democrat of the chance to be elected governor in November.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Bernie Sanders kicks off billionaires tax campaign with choice words for the ‘oligarchs’
What the … : Bondi claims win in ICE mask ban fight — but court ruled on different California case
The L.A. Times Special: Billionaires Spielberg, Zuckerberg eyeing East Coast, stirring concerns about California’s wealth-tax proposal

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Feb. 20 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump does not have the unilateral authority to impose tariffs.

The 6-3 decision struck down some of the broad tariffs Trump has imposed across the world from the Executive Branch. Chief Justice John Roberts said the president “must identify clear congressional authorization” to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs.

The decision came down in a lawsuit with several small businesses and Democratic attorneys general sued the Trump administration over improperly imposing tariffs. The plaintiffs argued that Trump was using the tariffs to raise revenue, a responsibility that falls under the scope of U.S. Congress, not the president.

While the Justice Department claimed that Trump was using tariffs to regulate foreign goods, Trump often said the tariffs were bringing in substantial revenue to the federal government.

Tariffs that Trump imposed using other laws will remain in place, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum.

Roberts added that the Trump administration has not provided any statutory support to its claim that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act applies to tariffs.

“We hold that the IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito, all conservative justices, dissented.

Friday’s decision is the first in which a legal challenge to Trump’s second-term policies received a full hearing and resolution from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Feb. 18 (UPI) — A federal court gave a final ruling Wednesday negating the Department of Education’s 2025 directive that sought to prevent federally funded schools and universities from practicing diversity, equity and inclusion.

The U.S. District Court in New Hampshire issued the ruling that permanently invalidated the “Dear Colleague” letter of Feb. 14, 2025, after the Department of Education backed down from the lawsuit. The letter, signed by Craig Trainor, who was then the acting assistant secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education, told schools they had 14 days to comply with the directive or face consequences, including loss of funding. Trainor cited the Supreme Court‘s 2023 ruling on Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard, which effectively ended affirmative action.

Soon after, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of New Hampshire, the ACLU of Massachusetts and lawyers for the National Education Association, filed suit to block enforcement of the letter. The Center for Black Educator Development and several New Hampshire School Districts later joined the case as plaintiffs.

In April, the court issued a preliminary injunction stopping the Department of Education from enforcing the new ruling.

District Court Judge Landya McCafferty ruled earlier in the case that the letter’s “isolated characterizations of unlawful DEI” conflicted with the term’s meaning, saying that DEI is fostering “a group culture of equitable and inclusive treatment.”

McCafferty said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving that the letter was vague, viewpoint discriminatory and unlawfully imposed new legal obligations.

Plaintiffs said they were pleased with the decision.

“This ruling affirms what educators and communities have long known: celebrating the full existence of every person and sharing the truth about our history is essential,” Sharif El-Mekki, CEO at The Center for Black Educator Development, said in a statement. “Today’s decision protects educators’ livelihoods and their responsibility to teach honestly.”

“While [President Donald] Trump and [Secretary of Education Linda] McMahon want to ban diversity, equity, and inclusion, educators know these values are at the core of our nation,” Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, said in a statement. “The Trump administration’s unlawful Dear Colleague letter and certification requirement have now been vacated and abandoned, underscoring how badly Trump and McMahon overreached in their attempt to interfere with curriculum and instruction.”

Feb. 17 (UPI) — Officials for Germany-based Bayer have agreed to pay $7.25 billion to settle a class action filed by those who say its Roundup weedkiller caused them or their loved ones to develop cancer.

The proposed settlement would create a fund to pay for existing and future claims filed by those who say the weed killer caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which is blood cancer that forms in the body’s lymphatic system – most often in the lymph nodes — and spreads to other organs.

Bayer filed the proposed settlement in the city of St. Louis Circuit Court on Tuesday that also would include a separate Durnell case that is before the Supreme Court.

“The proposed class settlement agreement, together with the Supreme Court case, provides an essential path out of the litigation uncertainty and enables us to devote our full attention to furthering the innovations that lie at the core of our mission: Health for all, Hunger for none,” said Bayer Chief Executive Officer Bill Anderson.

“This litigation and the resulting cost underscore the need for guidance from the Supreme Court on clear regulation in American agriculture.”

“The class settlement and Supreme Court case are both necessary to help bring the strongest, most certain and most timely containment to this litigation.”

Bayer subsidiary Monsanto produces the popularly used Roundup weedkiller and will make annual payments into the settlement fund over the next 21 years.

Monsanto officials do not admit to any wrongdoing and said they agreed to the settlement to end the tens of thousands of lawsuits filed against it and stop more from being filed.

The settlement applies to those who say they were exposed to Roundup before Tuesday and who have a medical diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma or are diagnosed with it within 16 years of the proposed settlement gaining final approval.

SACRAMENTO — Tom Steyer must solve this dilemma: How does he convince financially struggling Californians they can trust a billionaire to be their governor?

Because, after all, the former hedge fund titan doesn’t exactly share their daily ordeal of scraping up enough money to pay for rent, groceries and gas in the run-down car.

And he doesn’t have any record in public office to point to. He’s trying to start his elective career at the top.

So, what’s the solution? Well, you can be a global celebrity like super-rich actor Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was elected in 2003. Or a Gold Rush tycoon like Leland Stanford back in 1861. Other than those two, there’s a long list of well-heeled rookie failures.

They include Republican Meg Whitman, who blew $144 million of her fortune losing in 2010. And Al Checchi, who spent $40 million of his own money getting beaten in the 1994 Democratic primary.

“Look, they didn’t have anything to say,” Steyer told me while sipping tea at a popular hangout near the state Capitol, specifically mentioning Whitman and Checchi. “They’d never done anything. Not like I’ve done for 14 years.”

Steyer, 68, who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, touts his record of funding and promoting progressive causes, including successful ballot campaigns that raised tobacco taxes, closed a major corporate tax loophole and beat back oil industry efforts to kill climate fighting laws.

“I could give you 10 things I’ve done about environmental sustainability and economic justice,” he said.

“Why trust me? Because I’ve gotten results. And I don’t owe anybody anything.”

The Democrat spent $12 million on TV ads last year pushing Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 50 that allowed the Legislature to gerrymander congressional districts aimed at gaining five more Democratic seats in California.

Being a billionaire allows Steyer to buy all the TV spots he wants. He already has popped for $27 million worth running for governor.

But astronomical wealth comes with a political price.

“California voters do not cotton to some rich guy who has never spent a day in office but looks in the mirror one morning and suddenly sees a governor of California,” says veteran Democratic strategist Garry South.

So, in his campaign TV commercials, Steyer wears casual backyard barbecue garb trying to look like Mr. Average, but with a populist agenda.

“I’m the billionaire who’s going to take on the billionaires,” he says.

That sounds counterintuitive, and I’m skeptical about how well it sells.

Steyer knows he sorely needs labor support to seem credible among the working class. That’s why he recently joined rallies for striking teachers in San Francisco and healthcare workers in San Diego.

He has scored endorsements from the California School Employees Assn. — a union representing school staff — and the California Nurses Assn.

Nurses are backing Steyer largely because he has embraced their No. 1 goal: a single-payer, state-run health insurance system.

They’ve attempted to push that in Sacramento for years and failed. And for good reason.

Single-payer would cost the state barrels of money it doesn’t have. Moreover, it would replace not only private insurance, but popular federal Medicare and the state’s Medi-Cal program for the poor. The federal government would need to agree. Fat chance.

I asked Steyer whether he really believes the state bureaucracy is capable of handling such an ambitious undertaking.

“We’re going to have to get back to having a government that works,” he replied, in what sounded like a knock on Newsom and his predecessors.

How could he make a single-payer system work? “God is in the details,” he answered, a phrase he frequently uses. Translation: “I don’t know.”

“We’re going to work through it. That’ll take at least three years… But we’re going to have to do it…. Healthcare costs have been escalating for a very long time. And they’re eating up the [state] budget.”

After Steyer left hedge fund investing, he became an ardent crusader for clean energy and fighting climate change. It was his core issue running for president in 2020, when he spent $340 million before giving up.

But these days, he barely mentions climate. The better politics du jour is advocating for “affordability” — especially affordable housing.

Steyer said he doesn’t have a “silver bullet” for lowering housing costs. He has “silver buckshot” — a scattergun of solutions for boosting housing supply, plus rent control.

He’d shorten the time for issuing construction permits, require rezoning to develop vacant land, tax unoccupied housing left off the market and build higher — more like in New York’s Manhattan, where he was raised.

“What we’re doing is sprawl,” he said. “And what sprawl leads to is an awful lot of commuting, a lot of driving.”

That’s been a problem for generations, I noted. Suburban ranch-style housing is the California way. “People can change,” he said. “I think people want to.”

I asked him about the slow-poke bullet train project that’s costing four times original estimates.

“Of course, I’m in favor of high speed rail,” he said. “But good grief. We’ve been working on this for an incredibly long time and spent an incredible amount of money. As far as I can tell, we haven’t built anything. If we’re going to do high-speed rail, we have to build it at a reasonable price. And we haven’t been able to do that.”

Might he abandon the project? “I want to look at it,” he said.

The odds are against him ever getting the opportunity.

But the odds aren’t exciting for any candidate in this ho-hum contest.

Steyer is running in the middle of the pack, based on polls. He has hired the strategists who managed Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani’s victorious campaign for New York mayor.

There’s no front-runner for governor. But Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) has some momentum. He recently was endorsed by Sen. Adam Schiff. And he’ll also soon be endorsed by influential former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, I’m told.

Voters will do their all-important endorsing in the June 2 primary.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: In 50-year fight to protect California’s coast, they’re the real McCoys, still at it in their 80s
CA vs. Trump: Trump, California and the multi-front war over the next election
The L.A. Times Special: Who pays for Newsom’s travel? Hint: It’s not always taxpayers

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Feb. 13 (UPI) — The Department of Justice sued Harvard University on Friday for failing to hand over documents for an investigation into whether its admissions process discriminates against white people.

The Justice Department said its investigation is to determine if the Ivy League school is complying with the 2023 Supreme Court decision to ban affirmative action in higher education admissions. The investigation was launched in April and was to determine if the school’s admissions process for its undergraduate, law and medical schools follows the decision.

Harvard has said it follows the Supreme Court ruling.

“Under President [Donald] Trump’s leadership, this Department of Justice is demanding better from our nation’s educational institutions,” The Hill reported Attorney General Pam Bondi said. “Harvard has failed to disclose the data we need to ensure that its admissions are free of discrimination — we will continue fighting to put merit over DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] across America.”

The university responded that it is responding to the government according to the law.

“Harvard has been responding to the government’s inquiries in good faith and continues to be willing to engage with the government according to the process required by law,” a Harvard spokesperson said. “The University will continue to defend itself against these retaliatory actions which have been initiated simply because Harvard refused to surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights in response to unlawful government overreach.”

The Trump administration had been working with Harvard to arrange a deal after the administration was seeking $500 million and reforms from the school, to end the pressure campaign, which included a freeze on more than $2 billion in funding, a civil rights investigation and regulatory changes.

On Feb. 2, The New York Times published a story that said Trump had agreed to drop a demand for $200 million to finalize the deal. That night, Trump made a series of posts on Truth Social saying he wanted a criminal investigation of the university and increased the demand to $1 billion.

On Feb. 7, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that the Pentagon would end its academic partnership with Harvard, calling it a “woke” institution that is not welcoming to the U.S. military.

Thousands of Uber, Bolt and Addison Lee drivers will log off on Valentine’s Day, urging customers to boycott ride-hailing apps as unions accuse firms and TfL of failing to address falling pay, safety risks and unfair working conditions.

Private hire drivers across the UK are urging customers to boycott major ride-hailing apps on Valentine’s Day as part of a protest over pay, working conditions and what they describe as regulatory failures.

Members of the Independent Workers of Great Britain (IWGB) Private Hire Drivers branch are asking consumers not to use Uber, Bolt or Addison Lee on Saturday 14 February, while drivers log off the platforms and join a motorcade in central London from 5pm to demand legislative reform.

Nader Awaad, chairman of the IWGB Private Hire Drivers branch, described drivers’ experiences as “systemic exploitation” caused by fare structures, rising operating costs and what he calls insufficient oversight from Transport for London (TfL).

Awaad, 59, from Walthamstow, began driving in 2019 after being made redundant from a senior management role. He told The Mirror: “The UK’s private hire industry is a wild west. With no protection from unfair dismissal, drivers see their livelihoods disappear in the blink of an eye.

“With no real safety measures, we are left unprotected from passenger violence, frequently resulting in serious injuries or, in the tragic case of our member Gabriel Bringye, death. And that’s before we even start talking about pay,” he said.

Gabriel Bringye, 37, was a much loved private hire driver from Tottemham, north London. In February 2021, he was fatally stabbed during a robbery by a group of teenagers who had booked his cab by chance. He died from blood loss despite attempting to defend himself.

The attack left a deep mark on the driving community, and following the trial, Bringye’s family established Gabriel’s Campaign for Driver Safety, calling for stronger protections for private hire drivers and measures to prevent future tragedies.

According to the IWGB, drivers can work 12 to 18-hour days just to break even, covering fuel, insurance, vehicle maintenance, traffic fines and platform commission. Awaad highlighted a case where a Heathrow-to-central London ride cost £111 for the passenger, but the driver was paid only £29. “After expenses, many drivers are earning less than the minimum wage,” he told us.

He also criticised “upfront” or “dynamic pricing,” which sets fares for passengers and pays drivers via algorithms. Research from Oxford University found that Uber driver pay has declined since the model’s introduction. Under this system, drivers have no say over fares and can bear the cost of delays or route changes.

The protest follows the Supreme Court ruling that Uber drivers are workers, entitled to minimum wage and holiday pay. Awaad argues operators responded by adjusting pay structures in ways that reduced earnings. Uber has said it complies with the ruling and provides worker protections, including holiday pay, pensions and minimum earnings guarantees.

Beyond pay, safety remains a concern. Drivers report risks of assault and abuse, along with sudden account deactivation by operators. Awaad insists TfL, as the licensing authority, should oversee any suspension decisions. The union also wants stricter passenger identity checks after incidents involving stolen or fraudulent accounts.

Awaad’s attempts to raise these concerns directly with TfL Commissioner Andy Lord, including offering detailed evidence, were reportedly declined.

When The Mirror reached out to TfL, a spokesperson said: “We take our responsibilities as the licensing authority seriously to ensure that everyone can travel safely and reliably. Operators must meet high standards in order to be licensed in London and we continually keep licensing requirements under review to ensure safe services for Londoners.”

The IWGB is lobbying Parliament for legislative changes addressing pay transparency, commission levels, safety protections, and due process in account suspensions.

Alex Marshall, IWGB president, urged public support: “If drivers and riders unite, we can push TfL and the government to implement protections similar to New York, France, Mexico and Barcelona. Drivers deserve fair pay, capped hours, holidays and safety measures. The time for change is now.”

Responding to concerns around pay and transparency, an Uber spokesperson said: “We regularly engage with drivers, especially through our industry-leading agreement with GMB Union, who are not taking part in this action. More and more people choose to earn with Uber because we offer flexibility over where and when they work, as well as offering the best benefits in the sector.

“Drivers have transparency over every trip they take – including the destination and their earnings – before they decide whether to accept it. All drivers receive a weekly summary of their earnings, which includes a clear breakdown of what Uber and the driver received from trips,” the statement concluded.

Similarly, a Bolt spokesperson said the company operates a different model outside London. “Through Bolt Flex, the first model of its kind in the UK, drivers outside London can set their own fares, negotiate directly with passengers, and operate on a transparent, flat commission with no hidden fees. Drivers are already earning up to 7% more per trip on average, while receiving 24% more orders per hour.”

In response to safety concerns, Bolt added: “The safety of drivers is our top priority. We have committed €100 million globally to strengthen safety across our platform, contributing to a 14% reduction in safety-related incidents year over year.

“Drivers are provided with passenger ratings and ride history before pickup, can share live trip details with trusted contacts, and have access to 24/7 in-app and phone support. Our Emergency Assist button connects directly to emergency services and alerts Bolt’s 24/7 safety team, and our trip monitoring technology flags unexpected or prolonged stops. We also offer one of the sector’s most affordable CCTV schemes for drivers.

“Drivers on the Bolt platform operate as independent partners, and access is conditional on compliance with our safety and community standards. Accounts are only ever deactivated following a full investigation, with a clear review process. We will continue working with drivers to raise standards across the sector.”

The Mirror contacted Addison Lee for comment.

BBC Morning Live viewers said instead of £700 they will get £420 payout – and be ‘bombarded with calls and texts’

A BBC expert has given a warning to anyone who bought a car between 6th April 2007 and 1st November 2024. Finance expert Iona Bain told BBC Morning Live viewers that they face losing out by £280 on average if they make the wrong decision.

Ms Bain told hosts Helen Skelton and Rav Wilding that the car finance compensation scheme final details will be released in March – but people could miss out by appointing a claims company.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is hoping to compensate motorists who were unfairly sold a car loan between 2007 and 2024 because they were not properly informed about the commission paid to brokers, including car dealers.

Under the current proposals, about 14 million car finance deals could be eligible for compensation, with people estimated to get an average of £700 per agreement.

Ms Bain said: “So, if you took out car finance with a vehicle that was bought between 6th April 2007 and 1st November 2024, and if the car finance deal you got was Personal Contract Purchase (PCP), then you could be eligible for a share of this compensation bill, which is £8 billion.

“Essentially, we’re talking about the commission that was paid behind the scenes by car finance lenders to brokers whenever they sold one of these deals. Customers weren’t always aware of the level and scale of this commission, and that meant, in many cases, customers ended up with car finance deals that were more expensive and less competitive than they should have been.

“And that’s certainly what the Supreme Court ultimately ruled, and it decided that compensation was due to all those customers that were potentially in that situation. So look, it’s taken a while to get to this point, but now the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)—which is Britain’s regulator in this area—it’s said it’s going to be publishing the system for how people can apply for compensation in the next month or so.”

She said that the system being created will be straightforward and most importantly free to use. She said: “You can make a claim yourself; you don’t have to rely on a third party like a claims company. It should be completely straightforward for you to do yourself.”

She warned about claims management companies bombarding people – and explained they are making unfair claims and then will take large fees. She said: “If you see these adverts online, they are very enticing. They make claims like, “We’ll handle your claim for you,” “No win, no fee,” or “You could get thousands. But this is the reality: if you use one of these claims companies—whilst it’s perfectly legal to do so—they can take 20% to 40% of your compensation.”

Someone getting a payout of £700 would end up paying £280 to the company. Ms Bain added: “It is a lot. It means you won’t keep all the money that you’re ultimately owed. The fees can be buried in the small print, and you may not be aware of them until you’ve signed on the dotted line.

“So, one example is: let’s say you’ve signed up for a claims company, but then you change your mind—and that’s your right to do so. Some of these claims companies are charging termination fees for the work that’s been done, and those termination fees can be spurious and disproportionate for the work that’s actually been done.”

She said one prominent advert claimed the average car finance compensation that’s being paid out is going to be over £1,800. Ms Bain added: “I’m just going to say it: that’s not true. It’s not true, and the reason for that is that the FCA has not confirmed what compensation people are going to be getting. So, it has said that the average amount that will be paid out will be £700. Some people will get more, some people will get less, but it’s impossible to say at this stage what individuals will be getting until we know more about that FCA process.

“And also, I’m hearing these reports of people seeing these adverts, then giving their contact details to these claims companies, and then being bombarded by texts and calls trying to persuade them to sign up. I personally think that’s unacceptable.”

Other things to watch out for are:

• Upfront fees
• Unexplained charges
• A company promising guaranteed payouts or huge sums of money.

Ms Bain explained: “These are all big red flags. Just a reminder: you don’t need to use one of these companies. You can do this yourself and you get to keep all the compensation.”

Morning Live has provided a template for this on their website here.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 (UPI) — Some seven months after a Supreme Court Case gave parents sweeping rights to remove their children from lessons that violate religious beliefs, Republicans expresses concern Tuesday about school districts ignoring the ruling, while Democrats voiced fears that the ruling condoned discrimination.

​”In a world where new and controversial types of content are finding their way into classrooms, it is essential that parents maintain control over their child’s education,” Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., said in a congressional hearing of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, which he chairs.

​In Mahmoud vs. Taylor, the high court ruled in June that Maryland parents had a First Amendment right to opt out their children from public school lessons involving LGBTQ+ themed storybooks that conflict with their religion. Tuesday’s hearing provided a venue for House members to reflect on how the ruling has changed classrooms.

Democrats, for example, voiced worries about the dangerous precedent it sets for censorship and exclusion.

​”Inclusion is not indoctrination,” said the committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Ore. “Differences exist in the world around us. and part of a good education includes teaching students about tolerance and understanding.”

Bonamici said Republicans are using parental rights as another means to undermine public education.

One witness, Yeshiva University Assistant Professor of Law Zalman Rothschild, said he fears the decision could have broad implications and could be disruptive for education.

​”I have no idea how in any sense this can be bounded,” Rothschild said.

“For example, say a teacher tries to teach the value of nondiscrimination against religion and specifies its wrong to discriminate against Jews or against Muslims, and some parents have a problem with that because of their sincerely held religious beliefs, because Chapter 16 of Mark says that those who are not baptized are condemned,” he said.

Rep. Adelita Grijalva, D-Ariz., urged her Republican colleagues not take the ruling as permission to turn public schools into the “latest front in a culture war.”​

Grijalva said Republicans were hypocritical to encourage federal involvement in education when they call themselves “the party that wants things to go back to the local level.”​

“I want us to continue to support our duly locally elected school districts to make decisions about school curriculum,” Grijalva said.

Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., held up a children’s picture book from the Montgomery Area School District curriculum, “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” while she questioned witnesses. The story follows a young girl as she learns that her favorite uncle is getting married to his male partner, Jamie.

Lee said providing holistic education to American children became harder after the ruling.

“It’s about exploiting religious exemptions to shield children from the reality of queer people existing,” he said.

​Conservative education groups, however, applauded the power shift in schools after the ruling.

“Two of the story books, not only “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” but “Pride Puppy!” addressed non-binary individuals, drag queens and pride parades. These are individuals who don’t have a clear sense of their identity regarding whether they want to be a firefighter or a fairy when they grow up. What we’re dealing with is a designed attempt to change minds on perspectives,” said Sarah Perry, vice president of Defending Education, a national advocacy group that supports more parental involvement in schools.

​Throughout the hearing, Bonamici tried to steer the conversation to “hearing topics that actually matter,” including ICE allegedly inflicting trauma in schools and the effects of the dismantling of the Department of Education.

She pointed out that the committee had yet to hold a hearing on gun violence in schools and that just Monday, a 16-year-old was shot at a Montgomery County Public School.

​”No one is arguing that parents should not be involved in their children’s education. We all agree on that,” Bonamici said. “Banning books or preventing students from learning about differences only serves to perpetuate a culture of hatred and fear.”

Feb. 10 (UPI) — Officials for the Environmental Protection Agency said they are working to end a 2009 declaration that says climate change is a danger to public health.

During the weekend, EPA officials submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a proposed rule revoking the 2009 endangerment finding that guided U.S. climate and greenhouse gas regulations.

The EPA did not say when the endangerment finding officially would be revoked, but White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt suggested it would happen this week.

“This week at the White House, President [Donald] Trump will be taking the most significant deregulatory actions in history to further unleash American energy dominance and drive down costs,” Leavitt said in a prepared statement.

Revoking the endangerment finding removes the EPA’s statutory authority to regulate motor vehicle emissions that was provided via Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act of 1970, an EPA spokesperson told The Hill.

The endangerment finding is “one of the most damaging decisions in modern history,” the Leavitt said.

The Clean Air Act forces the EPA to regulate vehicle emissions that produce any pollutant that are reasonably thought to pose a danger to public health or welfare.

A 2007 Supreme Court ruling determined that greenhouse gas emissions that are thought to contribute to global warming meet the standard for air pollutants that require regulation due to their potential for harming public health.

The Obama administration in 2009 issued the endangerment finding for greenhouse gas emissions, which the prior Supreme Court ruling said requires the EPA to regulate them.

The EPA that year decided that greenhouse gas emissions likely would cause widespread “serious adverse health effects in large-population areas” due to increased ambient ozone over many areas of the United States.

“The impact on mortality and morbidity associated with increases in average temperatures, which increase the likelihood of heat waves, also provides support for a public health endangerment finding,” the EPA said in its endangerment finding.

“The evidence concerning how human-induced climate change may alter extreme weather events also clearly supports a finding of endangerment,” the EPA said, while acknowledging that the conclusion was based on “consensus.”

The finding said carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases are fueling storms, drought, heat waves, wildfires and rising seas, which pose a threat to public health.

Because the finding determined emissions from the burning of coal, gas and oil were said to contribute to climate change, the EPA undertook regulations of power plants, vehicles and other sources of greenhouse gas emissions, including gas stoves, ovens, water heaters and heating systems.

Revoking the endangerment finding ends those regulations, which could be reversed if a future administration reinstates the finding.

Feb. 10 (UPI) — Same-sex partners can legally co-own property in the Philippines, the nation’s Supreme Court announced Tuesday, a landmark decision for LGBTQ rights in the overwhelmingly Christian nation.

The ruling, which was dated Thursday but released Tuesday, states for the first time that same-sex partners can jointly own property under Article 148 of the Family Code, the country’s primary law governing marriage, family and property relations.

“Our laws should be read from more contemporary lenses. We must bear in mind how the lived realities of many couples in the Philippines are now far from heteronormative standards,” Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said in a concurring opinion.

“To be different is not to be abnormal. A same-sex relationship is a normal relationship and therefore should be covered by Article 148 of the Family Code. Otherwise, we render legally invisible some forms of legitimate intimate relationships.”

The ruling comes in litigation over ownership of a Quezon City house once inhabited by same-sex couple Jennifer Josef and Evalyn Ursua.

They purchased the property in 2006, agreeing to register it under Ursua’s name for ease of bank transactions. According to court documents, when they separated, they agreed to sell the house and divide the proceeds equally.

However, Josef filed a complaint for partition of the property and damages after Ursua refused to sell it, recognize Josef as a co-owner or give her half of the property.

Same-sex unions are illegal in the conservative Christian nation where public support of such relations was only about 22%, according to a 2018 survey by the nonprofit social research institute Social Weather Stations.

Shared property is governed under two provisions of the Philippine Family Code: Article 147, which applies to legally married couples; and Article 148, which concerns couples who cannot legally marry, such as so-called adulterous heterosexual relationships, incestuous or otherwise prohibited relationships and bigamous or polygamous marriages.

This effectively left same-sex couples without a clear legal basis to assert shared property claims.

The case made its way to the Supreme Court after a lower court and then an appeals court ruled against Josef.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the previous orders, citing a 2007 document signed by Ursua that recognized Josef as co-owner of the property into which she paid 50% of the expenses for its acquisition and renovation.

With its ruling, the high court clarified the provisions of the Family Code to state that same-sex couples fall under Article 148 since marriage is only permitted between a man and a woman.

The justices also stated that without a law recognizing same-sex marriage, Congress and local governments must work to address issues affecting the rights of same-sex couples.

“This Court does not have the monopoly to assure the freedom and rights of homosexual couples,” the Second Division of the Supreme Court said.

“With the political, moral and cultural questions that surround the issue concerning the rights of same-sex couples, political departments, especially the Congress, must be involved to quest for solutions, which balance interests while maintaining fealty to fundamental freedoms. The process of legislation exposes the experiences of homosexuals who have been oppressed, ensuring that they are understood by those stand with the majority.”

SACRAMENTO — California may be headed toward killing the billionaire birds that lay the golden eggs needed to nourish this Golden State.

The English fable about the farmer and his wife who foolishly whack their golden goose comes to mind when I think about the proposed billionaire tax in California.

The couple possessed a bird that laid a golden egg every morning, but they slaughtered it for one fat meal.

The billionaire tax — or wealth tax — would generate a one-time bounty for the state government of up to $100 billion collected over five years, according to its promoters. But its many critics say it would drive billionaires out of California, costing the state lots more in tax revenue over the long run.

These birds are capable of flying off to anywhere, after all.

Here’s how the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office summarizes the proposal’s fiscal effects:

• “Temporary increase in state revenues … probably would add up to tens of billions of dollars spread over several years.”
• ”Likely ongoing decrease in state income tax revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars or more per year.”

The golden goose is replaced by a mud hen.

Whether billionaires fly the coop or are forcibly penned in by the measure, as its drafters intend — and whatever the policy’s merits — it just seems like bad PR for California.

We might as well run TV ads and erect billboards along the border proclaiming: “Welcome to California, the land of opportunity. Make a fortune so state politicians can grab a sizable chunk.”

We’ve already got by far the highest income tax rates in the nation, topping out at 13.3%. The top 1% of earners pay between 40% and 50% of the entire state income tax collected annually. The top 0.1% kick in about 20%.

California is infamous for its unfriendly business climate, with byzantine regulations and an agonizingly slow permitting system.

“It sends out the worst possible message to the people we need in the state, the people who produce jobs,” says Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable.

Democratic strategist Garry South says: “Bleating about ‘tax the billionaires’ is a good applause line at Democratic gatherings, but it appears oblivious to the fact they’re already being taxed …

“Our revenue base is disproportionately dependent on capital gains and other income sources unique to the well-off.”

This wealth tax is not being pushed by Sacramento Democrats.

Love from labor, spurned by Newsom

Gov. Gavin Newsom is adamantly opposed. “It is not something that will allow us to be competitive,” he says.

And the governor asserts: “You would have a windfall one time, and then over the years you would see a significant reduction in taxes because taxpayers will move.”

Most Democratic candidates for governor oppose the ballot initiative.

“Driving out the entrepreneurs and innovators who have enriched California is not the answer to the pressing societal question” of how to address the “growing concentration of wealth,” says the latest gubernatorial entry, San José Mayor Matt Mahan.

The initiative is being led by a labor organization: the Service Employees International Union–United Healthcare Workers West, which represents 120,000 healthcare workers. It intends to spend up to $14 million to collect nearly 875,000 voter signatures by June 24 to place the measure on the November statewide ballot.

It would impose a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of California’s 200-plus billionaires, based on their wealth as of Jan. 1 this year. The tax would be due in 2027, but it could be paid in installments over five years.

That’s assuming state bureaucrats can even figure out the billionaires’ worth. And the new tax law isn’t tied up in courts for many years, as it surely would be.

Band-Aid for Republican healthcare cuts

The measure’s purpose is to make up for the billions of dollars in federal cuts to California healthcare programs, especially Medi-Cal. Of the total tax take, 90% would go to healthcare and 10% to education.

“If we don’t do something about [the federal cuts], we’re going to see devastating consequences,” says Suzanne Jimenez, the union’s chief of staff.

Unless the billionaires are taxed extra, she says, money will need to be seized from other programs — such as education and public safety — to salvage healthcare.

It’s just the opposite, critics argue: If billionaires flee the state to avoid the wealth tax, all programs will suffer in the long run because the golden geese no longer will be producing billions in annual tax revenue.

Actually, a better, more reliable solution than the billionaire tax for Democrats is to flip the House of Representatives in November. Win enough seats to seize control from Republicans. Maybe take over the Senate, too. Then restore adequate federal healthcare funding.

Some political infighters suspect that the union is using the threat of a ballot initiative to negotiate more healthcare money from the state budget.

“I think this whole thing is a bluff,” says Mike Murphy, a veteran political consultant who has been helping the opposition. “If you don’t want to see this thing on the ballot, make me happy by putting more money in the budget.

“But they picked the wrong time to rob an empty bank.”

The state government is running on red ink, with deficit estimates ranging from $3 billion (Newsom’s figure) to $18 billion (the legislative analyst’s). Even deeper holes are projected for the future.

Jimenez denies the measure is being used as a negotiating hammer.

“No,” she says. “Our focus is to qualify this for the ballot.”

If it does, there will probably be flocks of golden geese voting by absentee ballot in other states.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: A political earthquake in mayor’s race makes election a referendum on L.A.’s future
Gavin’s exit, stage right: Tax billionaires, cut rents and other takeaways from California’s first gubernatorial debate
The L.A. Times Special: Real, fake or overblown? Sorting fact from fiction in fraud allegations surrounding Newsom, California

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Hello and happy Thursday. I’m Times columnist Anita Chabria, filling in for Washington bureau chief Michael Wilner. Today we are talking about circling the drain, and whether its possible to escape the flush after the swirl has started.

Yes, I’m talking about President Trump’s latest latest grab at the levers of power, and whether it will pull us all down. Trump floated the existentially disturbing idea recently that the federal government should “take over” elections.

“The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting,” Trump said Monday on a podcast, making no attempt to keep election integrity nonpartisan.

This came shortly after the federal government raided a Georgia election office, still doggedly pursuing the very fake conspiracy that the 2020 vote was rigged against Trump. Lurking in the background of photos of that abuse of power was Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, a longtime peddler of conspiracy theories including that Ukraine housed secret U.S. biolabs.

It’s not just possible but likely that Gabbard will find “evidence” of fraud in Georgia because she has been claiming election interference since at least 2016 and reality has seemingly never been an impediment to her beliefs.

So some sort of report or “proof” probably will appear in coming months that Trump was right all along and that Democrats have tricked us all by stealing votes across the country.

That will be the basis for Trump to demand Congress “secure” the midterm election, and we all know how good they are at standing up to him.

But before we go there, let’s do a quick refresher on how Democrats supposedly steal elections, because that’s at the heart of what comes next.

It’s the immigrants, stupid

Trump (drawing from preexisting conspiracy theories promoted by many folks he has now placed in powerful positions) blames undocumented immigrants for his loss in 2020.

Under a long-running conservative election fraud hoax, Democrats allegedly made some sort of secret deal to allow Black and brown immigrants to illegally enter the country, if they would then promise to illegally vote en masse for Democrats.

“If we don’t get them out, Republicans will never win another election,” Trump said on that same podcast. “These people were brought to our country to vote and they vote illegally, and it is amazing that the Republicans are not tougher on it.”

This narrative has been proven false literally dozens if not hundreds of times in courts across the country, and by the rational minds of those who understand how impossible it would be for a conspiracy of this magnitude and complexity to go undetected — much less actually work.

Long before Harmeet Dhillon, the San Francisco Bay Area lawyer now demanding voter data as head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, used her official power to pursue this false conspiracy, she spent years upon years filing lawsuits and doing media appearances making the same claims.

And time and again, she and others were swatted down by courts (and common sense and evidence) because illegal immigrants working in collusion with Democrats to steal the vote is not a real thing.

But now election deniers are in power, and the gravitational pull away from truth is accelerating. Conspiracy is reality as we get closer to the ballot box.

ICE them out

And if immigrants indeed are stealing elections in between raping our women and eating cats and dogs, there is an answer: ICE.

Who better to secure ballot boxes than a masked, terrifyingly unaccountable armed federal force of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that maybe answers only to Corey Lewandowski (the shadowy political operative always at Kristi Noem’s side) and Stephen Miller?

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that Kavanaugh stops — basically stopping folks for living while brown or Black — are legal, these agents have probable cause galore. Add to that a new, legally unfounded directive that they can detain folks at will, without a warrant, and you have the perfect force to suppress an election.

Imagine if on election day, ICE roams the street in Democratic-leaning, nonwhite neighborhoods, stopping and even detaining folks as they go to polls. Demanding papers, dragging away dissenters.

“Your damn right,” Trump hanger-oner Steve Bannon said recently, “We’re going to have ICE surround the polls come November. We’re not going to sit here and allow you to steal the country again. And you can whine and cry and throw your toys out of the pram all you want, but we will never again allow an election to be stolen.”

Would you go to the polls in that scenario? Would you allow your 18-year-old to go or your elderly parent? I’d think twice, even as crucial as this vote is.

And here’s a bit of outrage you can aim at Democrats: Congressional leadership considered including a ban on ICE at polling places as part of their proposed deal to keep government funded — but didn’t. Once again, for those in the back, Democrats could have tried to stop this, but chose not to.

But wait! That’s not all!

Why can’t we just mail in our ballots, you ask. Well, that would be because changes by Trump to the U.S. Postal Service, and how ballots may be counted, are going to make it harder to ensure that mail-in ballots are received and counted as they traditionally have been handled. So mailing your ballot may work out fine, or may not.

And there you have it, that’s how a free and fair democracy spins into the vortex of authoritarianism, where elections are held, ballots are counted, but reality is lost.

You are antigravity

But folks, we are not there yet. Today is not that day!

There are things you can do, aside from peacefully protesting. People can start to make sure that their identification is in order (as Orwellian as that sounds) and help others to do so as well.

It’s likely that in some places at least, voter identification laws will make it harder to cast a ballot, and people will need to start getting birth certificates, Social Security cards or other paperwork now in order to comply with those rules. Ask who in your community needs that kind of help and how you can provide it.

People are going to need ways to vote in person and support doing it. If you are an employer, would you consider giving folks time off to vote, since poll lines may be long? Would you sign up to help those without transportation get to polls? Would you help with voter registration drives to get people signed up to vote?

And you can be certain that election conspiracy believers will be observing the vote, as they always do. Can you train now to be a responsible and fair poll watcher, to ensure there is balance and fairness in these observations?

The one thing we can’t do is believe Trump is unstoppable, that the point of no return has already passed, and democracy is flowing out the sewer pipes into the sea. In fact, we have 271 days to reverse this.

It will take mass participation on multiple levels — but it can be done.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Supreme Court, with no dissents, rejects GOP challenge to California’s new election map
The deep dive: Fulton County in Georgia Challenges the F.B.I.’s Seizure of 2020 Ballots
The L.A. Times Special: California doctor sent abortion pills to Texas woman. Under a new law, her boyfriend is suing

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

P.S. Jeff Bezos Wednesday gutted his newspaper, the Washington Post. Its motto is “Democracy dies in darkness,” but also, democracy dies in layoffs by billionaires who can afford to send their wives into space for fun, but don’t want to pay for journalism that criticizes a dear leader.

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that California this fall may use its new election map, which is expected to send five more Democrats to Congress.

With no dissents, the justices rejected emergency appeals from California Republicans and President Trump’s lawyers, who claimed the map was a racial gerrymander to benefit Latinos, not a partisan effort to bolster Democrats.

Trump’s lawyers supported the California Republicans and filed a Supreme Court brief asserting that “California’s recent redistricting is tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”

They pointed to statements from Paul Mitchell, who led the effort to redraw the districts, that he hoped to “bolster” Latino representatives in the Central Valley.

In response, the state’s attorneys told the court the GOP claims defied the public’s understanding of the mid-decade redistricting and contradicted the facts regarding the racial and ethnic makeup of the districts.

Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed re-drawing the state’s 52 congressional districts to “fight back against Trump’s power grab in Texas.”

He said that if Texas was going to redraw its districts to benefit Republicans so as to keep control of the House of Representatives, California should do the same to benefit Democrats.

The voters approved the change in November.

While the new map has five more Democratic-leaning districts, the state’s attorneys said it did not increase the number with a Latino majority.

“Before Proposition 50, there were 16 Latino-majority districts. After Proposition 50, there is the same number. The average Latino share of the voting-age population also declined in those 16 districts,” they wrote.

It would be “strange for California to undertake a mid-decade restricting effort with the predominant purpose of benefiting Latino voters and then enact a new map that contains an identical number of Latino-majority districts,” they said.

Trump’s lawyers pointed to the 13th Congressional District in Merced County and said its lines were drawn to benefit Latinos.

The state’s attorneys said that too was incorrect. “The Latino voting-age population [in District 13] decreased after Proposition 50’s enactment,” they said.

Three judges in Los Angeles heard evidence from both sides and upheld the new map in a 2-1 decision.

“We find that the evidence of any racial motivation driving redistricting is exceptionally weak, while the evidence of partisan motivations is overwhelming,” said U.S. District Judges Josephine Staton and Wesley Hsu.

In the past, the Supreme Court has said the Constitution does not bar state lawmakers from drawing election districts for political or partisan reasons, but it does forbid doing so based on the race of the voters.

In December, the court ruled for Texas Republicans and overturned a 2-1 decision that had blocked the use of its new election map.
The court’s conservatives agreed with Texas lawmakers who said they acted out of partisan motives, not with the aim of denying representation to Latino and Black voters.

“The impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in a concurring opinion.

California’s lawyers quoted Alito in supporting their map.