AMERIKA

Tracking debt: Which generation owes the most?

BY ANDREW DORN - 06/28/24 

• Gen Xers have the highest median non-mortgage debt of $33,859
• Millennials are the most likely to have student loan debt
• Texas cities topped the list for most debt across every generation

(NewsNation) — Mortgages make up the bulk of household debt but a new analysis shows most Americans owe thousands of dollars beyond their home loans, with members of Gen X carrying the highest balances.

Across the 100 largest metros in the U.S., the median non-mortgage debt is $24,668, according to online lending marketplace LendingTree. Gen Xers, between 44 and 59 years old, owed $33,859, the most across the four generations studied.

Millennials weren’t far behind, owing $30,558 across non-mortgage loans, including credit cards, auto loans, student loans, and personal loans.

Credit card debt is soaring, especially in these cities 

Debt levels also vary widely by region. Consumers in McAllen, Texas, have the highest auto debt across all generations, LendingTree found.

Gen Zers in Northeast cities like Boston and New Haven, Connecticut, had the highest student loan debt, while millennials carried higher student loan balances in southeast cities like Durham, North Carolina, and Atlanta, Georgia.

The analysis is based on more than 428,000 anonymized credit reports from LendingTree users in the nation’s 100 largest metro areas. The credit reports are from Oct. 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024.

Median non-mortgage debt balance by generation, according to LendingTree:

1. Gen Xers (ages 44-59): $33,859
2. Millennials (ages 28-43): $30,558
3. Baby Boomers (ages 60-78): $18,779
4. Gen Zers (ages 18-27): $16,562

The Gen X debt situation

Across all generations in the 100 largest metros, Gen Xers have the highest median non-mortgage debt at $33,859. The cohort also has the largest share of people with debt, nearly 99% carry some type of balance, LendingTree found.

Gen Xers led the way in three of the four categories analyzed. The group — between 44 and 59 years old — has the highest median credit card, auto loan and student loan balances.

Where they owe the most: Four of the five metros where Gen Xers owe the most are in Texas. McAllen tops the list, where Gen Xers owe a median balance of $46,166. Hefty auto loans appear to be the main driver in the Lone Star State, with Gen Xers’ typical car debt hovering around $29,000 in multiple cities.

Gen Xers credit card balances were highest in the northeast and Florida. Bridgeport, Connecticut ($8,669) and New York City ($7,922) topped the list, followed by Miami ($7,797), Lakeland ($7,777) and Cape Coral ($7,714), Florida.

Only 25% of Gen Xers still carry student loans; however, their median balance is $31,066, the highest of any generation.

The millennial debt situation

Millennials have had less time than Gen Xers to rack up debt but they’re already well ahead of the much older Baby Boomers, carrying a median non-mortgage debt balance of $30,558.

Student and auto loans are the main challenge for those ages 28 to 43. Millennials have the second-highest auto loan debt across generations, with nearly 60% owing a median balance of $20,826.

Gen Z has more credit card debt than millennials did at same age 

While their average student loan balance is lower than Gen X, millennials are the most likely to have that form of debt. Over 38% of millennials have student debt and their median balance is $24,112.

Where they owe the most: Three of the top five cities were in Texas with El Paso topping the list. Millennials in the West Texas city owe a median non-mortgage debt balance of $42,982.

Once again, auto loans tell much of the story. According to the analysis, five of the six U.S. cities where millennials carry the most car debt are in Texas.

When it comes to student loans, millennials in Washington D.C. owe the most, $31,895. The nation’s capital is followed by Durham ($30,606) and Raleigh ($30,119), North Carolina; Atlanta ($29,724); and Columbia, South Carolina ($29,353).

The baby boomer debt situation

Despite being the oldest generation in the analysis, baby boomers carry considerably less non-mortgage debt than Gen Xers and millennials, owing a median balance of $18,779 across the country’s largest metros.

The cohort between ages 60 and 78 are the most likely to carry credit card debt, with 93% having a balance. They owe a median of $4,862, the second highest of the generations studied.

Baby boomers are faring much better regarding student loans, only 11% still carry them. They’re also less likely to have car debt, just 48% owe on auto loans, the second-lowest by generation.

Where they owe the most: McAllen, Texas ($33,020) topped the list again, followed by Augusta, Georgia ($29,754), San Antonio ($28,524), Austin ($26,686) and Dallas ($25,965).

Although they have the lowest percentage of personal loans, baby boomers carry the highest balances, owing a median of $5,363. In Honolulu, Hawaii they owe a staggering $12,676 in personal loans.

The Gen Z debt situation

The youngest generation in the study has the lowest debt ($16,652) but the vast majority, 97%, still carry a balance.

As far as student loans, Gen Zers owe significantly less than other generations, with a median balance of $12,172 — roughly half of what millennials owe for school. Part of that is because many 18 to 27-year-olds are still making their way through college but they’re also less likely to attend in the first place.

Gen Zers are also fairly likely to have auto debt, with around 47% of the country’s youngest adults having a median car loan amount of $17,402, according to the analysis. 

Where they owe the most: McAllen ($27,781) and El Paso, Texas ($22,476) ranked at the top for Gen Z but the rest of the top ten had more geographic diversity than other generations. Cities like Cape Coral, Florida ($21,208), Harrisburg, Pennsylvania ($21,178) and Syracuse, New York ($21,116) were also among the highest for Gen Z debt.

Young adults in the Northeast carry a particularly high level of student loan debt. Boston ($20,986) ranked first, followed by New Haven ($20,173), Bridgeport ($19,250) and Hartford ($18,481), Connecticut.

 

Barrett breaks with conservatives over Jan. 6 obstruction charge ruling

BY ELLA LEE - 06/28/24 

In a pointed dissent, Justice Amy Coney Barrett skewered her fellow justices over their decision to narrow an obstruction charge used to prosecute scores of rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The Supreme Court voted 6-3 on Friday to side with Joseph Fischer, a former police officer accused of partaking in the Capitol attack who challenged the provision as being improperly applied to rioters.

Barrett, an appointee of former President Trump — who himself faces a criminal charge that could be impacted by the court’s opinion — noted the high court does not dispute that the certification of the 2020 presidential election results that day qualifies as an “official proceeding.” Nor does it dispute that rioters — including Fischer himself, allegedly — delayed the proceeding. 

“Given these premises, the case that Fischer can be tried for ‘obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding’ seems open and shut. So why does the Court hold otherwise?” the conservative justice wrote in a dissent joined by liberals Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. “Because it simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said.”

The law, Section 1512(c)(2), makes it a crime to “corruptly” obstruct, impede or interfere with official inquiries and investigations by Congress. It carries a maximum 20 years in prison and  has been used to prosecute more than 350 rioters accused of interrupting Congress’s 2020 certification of the vote.

But Fischer claimed the Justice Department retooled the charge to sweepingly prosecute those who participated in the riot, when the law — established in the wake of the Enron accounting scandal — actually intended to narrowly criminalize document shredding.

Barrett acknowledged that the Congress that enacted the law likely did not have the riot in mind when creating it. She quipped, “Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination?”

However, she contended that statutes “often go further than the problem that inspired them,” accusing the majority of “abandoning” the rules of statutory interpretation and completing “textual backflips” to find “some way — any way —” to narrow the provision’s reach. 

“Joseph Fischer allegedly participated in a riot at the Capitol that forced the delay of Congress’s joint session on January 6,” Barrett wrote. “Blocking an official proceeding from moving forward surely qualifies as obstructing or impeding the proceeding by means other than document destruction. Fischer’s alleged conduct thus falls within (c)(2)’s scope.” 

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that it would be “peculiar” to find that, in Congress’s efforts to close Enron gap, it “hid away … a catchall provision” reaching past the document shredding that prompted the legislation.

“The better conclusion is that subsection (c)(2) was designed by Congress to capture other forms of evidence and other means of impairing its integrity or availability beyond those Congress specified in (c)(1),” Roberts wrote.  

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal, joined the conservative majority. In a separate opinion, she signaled her belief it is possible for Fischer and other defendants to still be prosecuted under the charge.

“That issue remains available for the lower courts to determine on remand,” Jackson wrote. 

The Supreme Court’s decision could have profound implications on the Justice Department’s years-long prosecution of the Capitol attack.

Among those charged under the provision were several members of the extremist Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups, including leaders Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes. 

Two of Trump’s charges in his federal election subversion case — which has been on an indefinite pause as the Supreme Court weighs his presidential immunity challenge — also stem from the provision. He has pleaded not guilty.

US Supreme Court limits scope of obstruction statute in January 6 Capitol riot case

Ingrid Burke Friedman | JURIST Editorial Director

JUNE 28, 2024

In a closely watched decision stemming from the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, the US Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the government must prove a defendant impaired or attempted to impair the availability or integrity of evidence to be convicted under a key obstruction statute.

On January 6, 2021, a crowd of supporters of then-President Donald Trump gathered outside the US Capitol while Congress convened in a joint session to certify the 2020 Presidential election results in favor of Joe Biden. Amid escalating tensions, some protesters breached the Capitol, breaking windows and clashing with law enforcement, which resulted in a significant delay in the certification process. The events raised widespread concerns about the security of democratic processes in the United States.

The case, Fischer v. United States, centered on Joseph Fischer, who was charged under Section 1512(c)(2) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for allegedly obstructing Congress’ certification of the 2020 presidential election. Fischer argued the statute only covered actions aimed at evidence impairment, not broader obstructive conduct. The preceding section of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 1512(c)(1) establishes criminal liability for specific actions such as altering, destroying, or concealing records intending to obstruct official proceedings. Subsection 1512(c)(2) broadens this prohibition to anyone who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”The Supreme Court was asked to weigh in on whether the expansive language of 1512(c)(2) should be tempered by the specific acts listed in 1512(c)(2).

The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, narrowed the interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2), emphasizing its linkage to the preceding subsection. In assessing the meaning of “otherwise” in (c)(2), the court focused on two legal principles:noscitur a sociis, the principle that a word is “given more precise content by the neighboring words with which it is associated,” andejusdem generis, “a general or collective term at the end of a list of specific items is typically controlled and defined by reference to those specific items that precede it.” Combined, the court reasoned that these principles show that Congress generally would not introduce a general term if doing so would render the text preceding it meaningless.

On this basis, the court reasoned:

Under these principles, the ‘otherwise’ provision of §1512(c)(2) is limited by the list of specific criminal violations that precede it in (c)(1). If, as the Government asserts, (c)(2) covers all forms of obstructive con- duct beyond §1512(c)(1)’s focus on evidence impairment, Congress would have had little reason to provide any specific examples at all. And the sweep of subsection (c)(2) would swallow (c)(1), leaving that narrower provision with no work to do.\

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the majority improperly interpreted the law, stating “By textually narrowing [subsection 1512(c)(2)], the Court has failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches,” explaining that once Congress establishes the outer limits of liability, the Executive Branch can choose which cases to prosecute within those boundaries.

The decision is expected to have significant implications for future prosecutions related to obstruction of justice, particularly in high-profile cases involving political uprisings. It aligns with the Court’s historical approach of limiting statutory interpretations to prevent overly broad criminalization of conduct not intended by Congress.

The ruling vacates an earlier decision by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which had ruled in favor of a broader interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2).

Jan. 6 cases start being reopened after Supreme Court ruling

BY ELLA LEE - 06/28/24

Just hours after the Supreme Court narrowed an obstruction charge used to prosecute scores of Jan. 6 rioters, trial-level judges have started to reopen some cases tied to the 2021 Capitol attack.

The federal judge who oversaw the case against Guy Reffitt — the first rioter convicted by a jury — ordered Reffitt’s attorneys and the Justice Department (DOJ) to propose a schedule for “further proceedings” in light of the justices’ decision by July 5, signaling a resentencing is imminent. 

Reffitt was convicted on five counts, including obstruction of an official proceeding. The charge, stemming from Section 1512(c)(2), makes it a crime to “corruptly” obstruct, impede or interfere with official inquiries and investigations by Congress. It carries a maximum of 20 years in prison and has been used to prosecute more than 350 rioters accused of interrupting Congress’s certification of the 2020 electoral vote.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Friday to rein in the obstruction charge after a different rioter, Joseph Fischer, challenged that provision as being improperly applied to those who participated in the Capitol attack.

The judge who handled Reffitt’s case — U.S. District Judge Dabney Langhorne Friedrich, a Trump appointee — reopened several other rioters’ cases Friday afternoon, directing them to adhere to similar instructions as Reffitt. 

Among the hundreds of defendants convicted of obstruction of an official proceeding are several members of the extremist Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups — including the leaders of each group, Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes, respectively, though they were each convicted of the more serious charge of seditious conspiracy.

Their cases remain dormant for now, though an attorney for Tarrio told The Hill earlier Friday that the ex-Proud Boys national chair’s lawyers plan to “thoroughly review” Tarrio’s sentence and “any collateral consequences” of the high court’s decision.

Though most rioters charged with the obstruction count also faced other felony counts, 50 rioters were sentenced with the obstruction law as their only felony, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said during arguments before the Supreme Court in April. 

Other rioters took plea deals involving the charge, like Tennessee native Ronald Sandlin, whom prosecutors said traveled to Washington in a rental car packed with two pistols, two magazines of ammunition, cans of bear mace and other gear. His case was reopened Friday.

The Supreme Court’s decision could also cause one of the most notorious rioters from the Capitol attack to face prosecution again, the DOJ signaled in recent court filings: Jacob Chansley, dubbed the “QAnon Shaman.”

Chansley pleaded guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding and was sentenced to 41 months in prison without a trial. He was released early last year, but in recent court filings, prosecutors said the Supreme Court’s decision “may create a situation where evidence must be preserved and Defendant tried,” not expanding further on the matter. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement following the verdict Friday that he is “disappointed” by the decision, but the “vast majority” of rioters charged for their role in the attack “will not be affected by this decision.” The DOJ will take “appropriate steps” to comply with the high court’s ruling, he said. 

“We will continue to use all available tools to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy,” Garland said.

\

Analysis

Elena Kagan’s scathing Chevron dissent highlights US supreme court’s disregard for precedent

The court is turning into ‘an administrative czar’, says liberal justice after 40-year-old doctrine is overturned

Ed Pilkington

THE GUARDIAN

Fri 28 Jun 2024 

Elena Kagan issued a devastating dissent to the decision of her hard-right fellow supreme court justices to overturn the Chevron doctrine that has been a cornerstone of federal regulation for 40 years, accusing the majority of turning itself into “the country’s administrative czar”.

Kagan was joined by her two fellow liberal-leaning justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in delivering a withering criticism of the actions of the ultra-right supermajority that was created by Donald Trump. Such caustic missives have become commonplace from the three outnumbered liberals, with each carefully crafted dissent sounding more incensed and despairing than the last.



US supreme court strikes down 40-year precedent, reducing power of federal agencies

In a speech at Harvard last month, Sotomayor revealed that after some of the supreme court’s recent decisions she has gone back to her office, closed the door and cried.

“There have been those days, and there are likely to be more,” she said.

Kagan’s dissent in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo on Friday was the literary equivalent of crying over 33 pages. But she was also searingly angry.

She said that in one fell swoop, the rightwing majority had snatched the ability to make complex decisions over regulatory matters away from federal agencies and awarded the power to themselves.
A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubrisElena Kagan, in her dissent

“As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar,” she wrote.

For 40 years, she wrote, the Chevron doctrine, set out by the same supreme court in a 1984 ruling, had supported regulatory efforts by the US government by granting federal experts the ability to make reasonable decisions where congressional law was ambiguous. She gave a few examples of the work that was facilitated as a result, such as “keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest”.

Now, the hard-right supermajority had flipped that on its head.

Instead of federal experts adjudicating on all manner of intricate scientific and technical questions – such as addressing the climate crisis, deciding on the country’s healthcare system or controlling AI – now judges would make those critical calls.

Kagan, displaying no desire to pull her punches, portrayed Friday’s ruling as a blatant power grab by the chief justice, John Roberts, and his five ultra-right peers, three of whom were appointed by Trump – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

“A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris,” she wrote.

Not for the first time, her most caustic comments relate to stare decisis – the adherence to legal precedent that is the foundation stone of the rule of law. Respect for the previous judgments of the supreme court is a reminder to judges that “wisdom often lies in what prior judges have done. It is a brake on the urge to convert every new judge’s opinion into a new legal rule or regime.”

By contrast, she went on: “It is impossible to pretend that today’s decision is a one-off, in its treatment of precedent.”

It has become an unquestionable pattern: the new hard-right supermajority has a fondness for tearing up their own court’s precedents stretching back decades. They did it when they eviscerated the right to an abortion in 2022, upending 50 years of settled law; they did it again last year when they prohibited affirmative action in university admissions, casting out 40 years of legal precedent; and now they’ve done it once more after 40 years to Chevron.

“Just my own defenses of stare decisis, my own dissents to this court’s reversals of settled law, by now fill a small volume,” Kagan said, her final words as plaintive as they were defiant.

US Supreme Court strikes down Chevron deference, freeing courts to overrule regulatory agencies in expert determinations

Matthew Farrell | U. Toronto Faculty of Law, CA

JUNE 28, 2024

The US Supreme Court ruled on Friday that courts must exercise independent judgment in assessing an agency’s statutory authority. This overruled the deference long afforded to an agency’s interpretation of its mandate under Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

The case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo Secretary of Commerce considered the regulation of fishing. The petitioners challenged the decision of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to require the petitioners to pay for observers required under a fishery management plan. They argued that the NMFS did not act within its mandate from the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).

The Supreme Court did not decide on the facts of Loper. However, these facts provided an ambiguity in legislation through which the court could overrule the Chevron deference and remand Loper for further proceedings. In Chevron, the court found that “the Administrator’s interpretation… is entitled to deference” when it involves technical and complex reasoning to reconcile conflicting policies. The Loper court disagreed, finding that “Chevron was a judicial invention that required judges to disregard their statutory duties.”

In reaching this conclusion, the court analyzed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), legislation that determines the role of courts. The court found that the Chevron deference conflicts with the APA, which states that “the reviewing court” is to “decide all relevant questions of law.” The majority went on to discuss how the court has consistently minimized the Chevron deference’s scope over time–they hadn’t even used the principle since 2016–recognition that its “justifying presumption is… a fiction.”

The dissent attempted to defend Chevron deference by stating that judges must defer to agencies with institutional knowledge because “judges are not experts in the field.” However, the majority confirms that agencies’ statutory authority is a question of law, and, therefore, deference to agencies contradicts directly with the APA.

Though the court’s decision in Loper may contradict the stare decisis principle of judicial continuity, the court found that some cases must involve the court “correcting [its] own mistakes.” Despite this, the court still confirmed that the holdings of previous cases using the Chevron deference (including Chevron itself) stand, perhaps easing concern over a wave of new litigation over old issues

 

Supreme Court broadly shifts power from federal agencies to judges

BY RACHEL FRAZIN - 06/29/24 

The Supreme Court has broadly expanded the power of judges at the expense of federal agencies with a pair of decisions this week, and it could be poised to do so again next week. 

Altogether, its actions to transfer authority from agencies to the judiciary could curtail a wide range of financial, environmental, workplace and consumer protections. 

“It’s just part of a continuing trend with the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court in particular, exercising more and more power … at the expense, potentially, of the other branches,” said Don Goodson, deputy director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. 

On Friday, the court struck down a legal doctrine known as the Chevron deference that instructed judges to defer to agencies when the law is ambiguous, in a case known as Loper Bright v. Raimondo.

That decision came one day after it ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) use of internal administrative courts to try civil fraud cases was unconstitutional — a move that could reverberate to other agencies that also use administrative courts. 

In a scathing dissent on the Chevron case, Justice Elena Kagan wrote “it is impossible to pretend that today’s decision is a one-off” in how it treats agencies, noting that the SEC case similarly kneecapped them. 

“This very Term presents yet another example of the Court’s resolve to roll back agency authority,” she added. 

Next week the court is expected to issue a decision in a third case that could weaken regulatory statutes of limitation and give opponents of a federal action more time to sue.

“You do see a court that’s growing increasingly skeptical of executive power and administrative power” over the last decade, said Jesse Panuccio, who was the Justice Department’s acting associate attorney general during the Trump administration. 

“The executive branch has grown vastly in its powers and in the scope of its regulation,” he added. “I think the court is saying, if that’s where we’re going to be, we need to rein in some of these presumptions in favor of agencies.”

But critics of the court’s moves say that they could weaken the agencies to the detriment of the country. 

James Goodwin, policy director at the Center for Progressive Reform, said that the opinions issued this past week are “all pointed in the same anti-regulatory direction.”

He said the SEC case will “have a chilling effect on agency enforcement actions,” while the Loper Bright case will have a “similar chilling effect on agencies, but with respect to policy making.”

The latter case is expected to allow judges to more easily strike down federal agency rules. That increase in judicial power is technically politically neutral, though liberal critics say the federal judiciary’s conservative makeup could in practice enable right-wing principles to prevail in many cases.

Goodson said that even prior to the decision, some agencies may have already been avoiding actions that would rely on Chevron out of fear that the precedent would be overturned. 

“Many people have been treating Chevron as overruled for several years now because of the extreme skepticism that has been coming from members of the court,” he said. 

The SEC case will apply “anytime federal agencies seek to pursue civil penalties for certain kinds of violations,” like fraud, requiring such cases to go to the federal judiciary, said Cary Coglianese, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. 

But he noted that agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could also see their cases shifted to federal court — and that the ruling could reach nonfinancial agencies, too, in cases like fraudulent filing of environmental reports with the government. 

The cases echo a prior decision that also curbed federal agencies’ power. In that 2022 ruling, the Supreme Court not only limited how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate climate change, it also codified a legal theory known as the “major questions doctrine,” which holds that regulations of substantial national significance need to have clear authorization from Congress.

Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that decision will have an even greater impact than the more recent ones.

When the major questions doctrine is applied, “the agency doesn’t even have the power to regulate, let alone to regulate in a particular way,” said Carlson, who also recently served in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under President Biden. 

Carlson said that Friday’s decision is “one more weapon … in an arsenal being used to attack the administrative state,” but that she expects the “major questions doctrine” to be much more impactful. 

Goodwin, with the Center for Progressive Reform, similarly said that he expects major questions to come into play for the biggest cases, while the Loper Bright ruling may have an impact in cases involving more “intermediate” rules like endangered species protections. 

Panuccio, the former Justice Department official who is now a partner at law firm Boies Schiller Flexner, said that in the coming years, the court has the opportunity to go even further in reining in the other branches by looking to restrict what authorities Congress is allowed to delegate to the agencies. 

“That’s always a challenge that pops up here and there, which is … is the court willing to revisit what’s called the non-delegation doctrine and put some limits on what Congress allows agencies to do?” he said. 

“So long as there are regulated parties and parties on the losing end of a government decision, that’s always something litigants are going to try …. to try to get that question before the court again,” he added. 

 Iran blasts Canada for depriving half a million Iranians of voting

ByIFP Editorial Staff

June 29, 2024

Canada was the only country that barred Iranian expatriates from voting in the snap presidential elections held on Friday, an Iranian diplomat complained.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Consular, Parliamentary, and Expatriates Affairs, Alireza Bikdeli, said the Canadian government ignored several official requests by Iran to allow the Iranians in the country to cast their ballots in the presidential election.

Iran and Canada severed their diplomatic ties in 2012 over Iran’s support for Syria in its fight against foreign-backed militants. Italy and Switzerland act as the protecting powers in the absence of diplomatic representation.

Bikdeli said, “We express our protest against the Canadian government for violating Iranians’ right to participate (in the election),” cutting off the Iranian citizens’ connection with their motherland.

“Over 500,000 Iranians in Canada were denied the ballot box. It will be a disgrace for a country that claims to be democratic and an advocate of human rights,” he stated.

Iranian voters in Canada had to head to polling stations along the US border.

Over 344 polling stations were set up for Iranians around the world to take part in the election on Friday, held to fill the top executive post left vacant after former president Ebrahim Raisi and his entourage died in a helicopter crash last month.

Africa key to global efforts in preserving nature: IUCN



Held every four years, the IUCN regional forums connect key biodiversity stakeholders in a bid to encourage knowledge sharing across sectors and regions. WAM


Razan Khalifa Al Mubarak, President of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), delivered a keynote speech at the Africa Conservation Forum in Nairobi, Kenya.

Organised by the National Committee of IUCN Members in Kenya and the Government of Kenya, the event which commenced on Wednesday (26 June), is designed to shape Africa public policy towards nature conservation in the lead up to the World Conservation Congress 2025, set to take place in Abu Dhabi.

Al Mubarak addressed an audience which included more than 500 representatives of IUCN constituents.

“As one of nine regional conservation forums, this event sets the stage for the World Conservation Congress in Abu Dhabi in 2025,” said Al Mubarak.

“Africa is crucial to global efforts to preserve nature, adapt to climate change, and create a just world that values nature.”

According to Al Mubarak, the efforts to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 and reach net-zero levels of greenhouse emissions should be inclusive, incorporating the knowledge of local communities and indigenous knowledge.

Africa is already demonstrating leadership in the effort to implement just and equitable solutions that address both the climate and nature challenges, with people’s well-being and progress as a prerequisite for success,” she said.

“In Africa, we see how indigenous practices and local stewardship lead to sustainable results,” said Al Mubarak. “IUCN promotes these inclusive and transformative approaches, recognising that true sustainability comes from respecting and utilising the wisdom of those closest to the land.”

Held every four years, the IUCN regional forums connect key biodiversity stakeholders – public bodies, scientists, activists, and international and regional organisations – in a bid to encourage knowledge sharing across sectors and regions.

“IUCN is often seen as a large global organisation; however, our aim is to empower action on the local level and support the implementation of conservation solutions on the ground,” said Al Mubarak. “Regional Conservation Forums gather our union together at a regional level: members, commissions, national and regional committees, regional councillors and secretariat staff. All these constituents have the opportunity to interact and build connections, to better understand the Union they are part of, and shape its future.”

For the first time, the Africa Conservation Forum combines all three IUCN subregions in Africa. The event is one of nine regional fora which the IUCN is holding over the coming seven months in preparation for the world’s largest conservation event, the IUCN World Conservation Congress 2025, held in Abu Dhabi in October next year. IUCN constituents will receive information on how to submit motions which ultimately can become IUCN resolutions. Participants can also provide input to the forthcoming IUCN Programme for the next four-year period and the IUCN 20-year strategy.

“The 20-year strategy is designed to help the organisation tackle the challenges of the next two decades, challenges which are essential to the well-being of humanity,” said Al Mubarak. “Our strategic aim is to help the IUCN take its place on the global stage as a leading authority on the conservation of nature and the intersection between conservation efforts and climate action.”

Recently, Al Mubarak, joined the Taskforce on Nature-Related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) as Co-Chair.

Al Mubarak will be working alongside David Craig, founder and CEO of Refinitiv, one of the largest data and technology platform providers to financial markets operating in over 160 countries.

Al Mubarak is replacing Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, Deputy Executive Secretary of the United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment).

In her new capacity as Co-Chair, Al Mubarak will help lead the Taskforce’s efforts to embed the TNFD recommendations in the global corporate reporting architecture aligned with the commitment of over 190 governments around the world to Target 15 of the Global Biodiversity Framework.

WAM

Australia PM says arrogant Meta should pay outlets for news

CANADA SAYS DITTO

Meta said early this year it would not renew its commercial deals. 

PHOTO: REUTERS

JUN 29, 2024

MELBOURNE - Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called social media companies arrogant and irresponsible, as the government’s battle to have Meta Platforms Inc. continue to pay local media organisations for content escalated.

Meta’s regional policy director Mia Garlick told a parliamentary committee on June 28 that “all options were on the table,” when asked whether the company would ban news on its platforms if the government determined it fell under the news media bargaining code, the Australian Financial Review reported.

Under the code, introduced in 2021, Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones could “designate” Meta, pushing the company into discussions for payment with news organisations, or risk fines of 10 per cent of its Australian revenue.

“They have a responsibility to keep news on their platforms,” Mr Albanese said at a media conference in Melbourne on June 29.

“The arrogance that’s been shown by these international social media companies is not aligned with the social responsibility that they have.”

Alphabet Inc. and Meta in 2021 struck deals to pay several Australian news organisations for content, however Meta said early this year it would not renew its commercial deals.


Media companies Seven West Media Ltd. and Nine Entertainment Co. this week pointed to the expiry of the deal among the reasons they will cut jobs.

Yes, I would also like to receive SPH Media Group's
SPH Media Limited, its related corporations and affiliates as well as their agents and authorised service providers. marketing and promotions.

“They should fulfil the commitments that they had previously given,” Mr Albanese said. BLOOMBERG

 

Spanish economy needs to diversify sources of growth, says leading economist

By

 Xinhua News Agency

Since the end of the COVID pandemic, Spain’s economy has been expanding thanks largely to the recovery of its tourism sector. However, the country should now focus on diversifying its sources of growth by, for example, investing more in renewable energies, artificial intelligence (AI) and education, a leading Spanish economist told Xinhua in an interview on Friday.

In 2022 and 2023, the economy grew a lot driven by a post-COVID tourism boom. But now this type of growth is reaching a plateau and “we see stagnation, which means (we must) find other sources of growth,” said Sergi Basco, associate professor of economics at Barcelona University.

“Unlike countries such as Germany, Spain has a high number of sunny hours, so it would make sense to invest more in solar power and the production of renewable energy for export. There are industries and sectors other than tourism that could be promoted,” he added.

Although Spain’s economy grew by 0.8 percent in the first three months of this year, almost tripling the Eurozone average of 0.3 percent, Basco warns it grew “for the wrong reasons,” including tourism and investments by the government, “which is still spending the European recovery funds.”

GDP growth for 2025 and 2026 is projected to shrink to 1.8 percent because the tourism dividend and the special European funds are running out, Basco noted.

This, he said, is very low, but the decline could be reversed by shifting focus to such areas as renewable energy and AI and investing more in education.

Panama court acquits 28 in Panama Papers trial

The 28 defendants were accused of money laundering in cases linked to the Panama Papers and "Operation Car Wash" scandals. Their names were not provided in the court statement.

In 2016, a trove of financial documents were leaked which revealed how many of the world's wealthy stashed their assets into offshore companies

A Panama court on Friday acquitted 28 people charged with money laundering in cases at the center of the Panama Papers and Operation Car Wash scandals.

The names of those acquitted were not provided in the statement.

Precautionary measures were lifted against all 28 defendants by Judge Baloisa Marquinez. She also said one criminal process was canceled due to the death of one of the defendants.

She fined 10 witnesses with 100 balboas (€93 or $100) who had not complied with summons.

Among those acquitted were co-founders of the now defunct law firm Mossack Fonseca, German national Jurgen Mossack and Ramon Fonseca. Prosecutors had been seeking 12 years in prison for both of them, which is the maximum sentence for money laundering.

Fonseca, a Panamanian, died in May this year.

Evidence 'not sufficient and conclusive'

Marquinez said evidence collected from Mossack Fonseca's servers did not comply with the chain of custody, raising doubts about its "authenticity and integrity."

"The rest of the evidence was not sufficient and conclusive to determine the criminal responsibility of the defendants," said the court statement.

In 2016, leaked documents from Mossack Fonseca showed offshore accounts where wealth had been stashed, causing scandal and prompting worldwide investigations.

Accounts in tax havens were linked to people like former Argentinian President Mauricio Macri, football star Lionel Messi, Spanish filmmaker Pedro Almodovar, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and many more.
Operation Car Wash

"Operation Car Wash" was an anti-corruption probe that began in Brazil in 2014. The investigation exposed corruption across Latin America, with many politicians and business leaders being convicted. This included former Brazilian presidents Fernando Collor de Mello and Michel Temer, as well as current president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

In her judgment, Marquinez said it could not be determined that money from illicit sources had entered Panama from Brazil with the purpose of helping conceal crimes.

tg/kb (AFP, Reuters)

No slowdown in US aid for Israel, thousands of 2,000-pound bombs sent: Report

Since October 7, the US transferred at least 14,000 of the MK-84 2,000-pound bombs, 6,500 500-pound bombs, 3,000 Hellfire missiles, 1,000 bunker-buster bombs, 2,600 air-dropped small-diameter bombs, and other munitions, according to officials.


Reuters
Washington,UPDATED: Jun 29, 2024 
Posted By: Devika Bhattacharya

In Short

US sent Israel large munitions since Gaza war

14,000 MK-84 bombs, 3,000 Hellfire missiles sent

No significant drop-off in US military support


The Biden administration has sent to Israel large numbers of munitions, including more than 10,000 highly destructive 2,000-pound bombs and thousands of Hellfire missiles, since the start of the war in Gaza, said two US officials briefed on an updated list of weapons shipments.

Between the war's start last October and recent days, the United States has transferred at least 14,000 of the MK-84 2,000-pound bombs, 6,500 500-pound bombs, 3,000 Hellfire precision-guided air-to-ground missiles, 1,000 bunker-buster bombs, 2,600 air-dropped small-diameter bombs, and other munitions, according to the officials, who were not authorised to speak publicly.

While the officials didn't give a timeline for the shipments, the totals suggest there has been no significant drop-off in US military support for its ally, despite international calls to limit weapons supplies and a recent administration decision to pause a shipment of powerful bombs.

The Biden administration has paused one shipment of the 2,000-pound bomb. (Reuters/File)

Experts said the contents of the shipments appear consistent with what Israel would need to replenish supplies used in this eight-month intense military campaign in Gaza, which it launched after the Oct. 7 attack by Palestinian Hamas militants who killed 1,200 people and took 250 others hostage, according to Israeli tallies.

"While these numbers could be expended relatively quickly in a major conflict, this list clearly reflects a substantial level of support from the United States for our Israeli allies," said Tom Karako, a weapons expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, adding that the listed munitions were the type Israel would use in its fight against Hamas or in a potential conflict with Hezbollah.

The delivery numbers, which have not been previously reported, provide the most up-to-date and extensive tally of munitions shipped to Israel since the Gaza war began.

Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah have been trading fire since the start of the Gaza war, and concern is rising that an all-out war could break out between the two sides.

The White House declined to comment. Israel's Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The shipments are part of a bigger list of weapons sent to Israel since the Gaza conflict began, one of the US officials said. A senior Biden administration official on Wednesday told reporters that Washington has since Oct. 7 sent $6.5 billion worth of security assistance to Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in recent weeks claimed that Washington was withholding weapons, a suggestion US officials have repeatedly denied even though they acknowledged some "bottlenecks".

The Biden administration has paused one shipment of the 2,000-pound bomb, citing concern over the impact it could have in densely populated areas in Gaza, but US officials insist that all other arms deliveries continue as normal. One 2,000-pound bomb can rip through thick concrete and metal, creating a wide blast radius.

Reuters reported on Thursday that the United States is discussing with Israel the release of a shipment of large bombs that was suspended in May over worries about the military operation in Rafah.

International scrutiny of Israel's military operation in Gaza has intensified as the Palestinian death toll from the war has exceeded 37,000, according to the Gaza health ministry, and has left the coastal enclave in ruins.

Washington gives $3.8 billion in annual military assistance to its longtime ally. While Biden has warned that he would place conditions on military aid if Israel fails to protect civilians and allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza, he has not done so beyond delaying the May shipment.

Biden's support for Israel in its war against Hamas has emerged as a political liability, particularly among young Democrats, as he runs for re-election this year. It fuelled a wave of "uncommitted" protest votes in primaries and has driven pro-Palestinian protests at US universities.

While the United States provides detailed descriptions and quantities of military aid sent to Ukraine as it fights a full-scale invasion of Russia, the administration has revealed few details about the full extent of US weapons and munitions sent to Israel.

The shipments are also hard to track because some of the weapons are shipped as part of arms sales approved by Congress years ago but only now being fulfilled.

One of the US officials said the Pentagon has sufficient quantities of weapons in its own stocks and had been liaising with US industry partners who make the weapons, such as Boeing Co and General Dynamics, as the companies work to manufacture more.

Only 17% of targets to improve global life likely to be reached by 2030: UN

AP |
Jun 29, 2024 

According to the report, nearly half the targets show minimal or moderate progress and over one-third are stalled or regressing


The United Nations warned Friday that only 17% of its 169 targets to improve life for the world’s more than 7 billion people are on track to be reached by the 2030 deadline.

A man walks past the headquarters of the United Nations building in Midtown Manhattan in New York, (AFP)

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres launched the annual report saying, “It shows the world is getting a failing grade.”

World leaders adopted the 17 wide-ranging development goals from ending global poverty to achieving gender equality in 2015, and set 169 specific targets to be reached by the end of the decade.

According to the report, nearly half the targets show minimal or moderate progress and over one-third are stalled or regressing — with just 17% are on track to be achieved.

“The takeaway is simple,” Guterres said. “Our failure to secure peace, to confront climate change, and to boost international finance is undermining development.”

The report also cited the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and said an additional 23 million people were pushed into extreme poverty and over 100 million more were suffering from hunger in 2022 compared to 2019.

“In a world of unprecedented wealth, knowledge and technologies, the denial of basic needs for so many is outrageous and unacceptable,” Guterres said.

On the downside, the U.N. reported that for the first time this century, per-capita GDP growth in half of the world’s most vulnerable nations is slower than that of advanced economies, threatening improvements in equality. And in 2022, it said, nearly 60% of countries faced moderate to abnormally high food prices.

The goal of quality education is far offtrack. Only 58% of students worldwide achieved minimum proficiency in reading by the end of primary school, and “recent assessments reveal a significant decline in math and reading scores in many countries,” the report said.

As for gender equality, it said the world continues to lag: One in five girls still marry before age 18, violence against women persists, far too many women don’t have the right to decide on their sexual and reproductive health — and at current rates it will take 176 years for women to reach parity with men in management positions.

Guterres said the report also has “some glimmers of hope.”

Mobile broadband is accessible to 95% of the world’s population, up from 78% in 2015. Global capacity to generate electricity from renewable has been expanding at an unprecedented 8.1% annually for past five years, the report said.

Increased access to treatment has averted 20.8 million AIDS-related deaths in the past three decades. New malaria vaccines being rolled out could save millions of lives. Girls in most regions are now achieving parity with boys in education. And many women are breaking glass ceilings, it said.

“But the speed and scale of the change needed for sustainable development is still far too slow,” Guterres said.

He called for action to end wars from Gaza to Ukraine, Sudan and beyond, “and to pivot from spending on destruction and war to investing in people and peace.”

The secretary-general also called for greater action to combat climate change and on “the green and digital transitions.”

According to the report, there is a $4 trillion annual gap in the investments needed to help developing countries reach the sustainable development goals.

Guterres called for stepped-up efforts to deliver the resources and also to reduce debt pressures and debt servicing costs, to expand access to contingency financing for countries at risk of a cash flow crisis, and to multiply the lending capacity of the World Bank and other development banks.

“We must not let up on our promises — to end poverty, protect the planet and leave no one behind,” the secretary-general said.