 |
|
|
|||||
The Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to use a 1798 wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to deport Venezuelan migrants it accuses of being gang members, ending the temporary halt on deportations ordered by a federal district judge. But the court also ruled that the administration must give Venezuelans it claims are gang members the chance to legally fight any deportation orders. It also did not weigh in on Trumps invocation of the act. The ruling came after the wartime law was used last month to fly more than 130 men accused of being members of the gang Tren de Aragua to El Salvador, where the U.S. has paid to have the men held in a notorious prison. The Trump administration argues that the gang has become an invading force. The Venezuelans deported under the act did not get a chance to challenge the orders, and attorneys for many of the men say there’s no evidence they are gang members. American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt called it an important victory that people must now be given the right to challenge their removal orders. The Trump administration welcomed the ruling, with Attorney General Pam Bondi saying an activist judge in Washington, DC does not have the jurisdiction to seize control of President Trumps authority to conduct foreign policy. What is the Alien Enemies Act? In 1798, with the U.S. preparing for what it believed would be a war with France, Congress passed a series of laws that increased the federal government’s reach. The Alien Enemies Act was created to give the president wide powers to imprison and deport noncitizens in time of war. Since then, the act has been used just three times: during the War of 1812 and the two world wars. It was part of the World War II legal rationale for mass internments in the U.S. of people of German, Italian and especially Japanese ancestry. An estimated 120,000 people with Japanese heritage, including those with U.S. citizenship, were incarcerated. Can the U.S. use a wartime law when it’s not at war? For years, Trump and his allies have argued that the U.S. is facing an invasion of people arriving in the country illegally. Arrests on the U.S. border with Mexico topped 2 million a year for two straight years for the first time under President Joe Biden, with many released into the U.S. to pursue asylum. After hitting an all-time monthly high of 250,000 in December 2023, they dropped sharply in 2024 and dramatically more after Trump took office. The Trump administration has increasingly described the migrant issue as a war, most notably by designating eight Latin American criminal groups, including Tren de Aragua, as foreign terrorist organizations. Trump’s invocation of the act, which was publicly announced March 15, the same day as the deportations, said Tren de Aragua was attempting an invasion or predatory incursion of the United States. Administration officials now regularly use military terminology to describe the situation, with Trump telling reporters last month that this is a time of war. Trumps critics insist he is wrongly invoking an act designed for use during declared wars. Trumps attempt to twist a centuries-old wartime law to sidestep immigration protections is an outrageous and unlawful power graband it threatens the core civil liberties of everyone, Scott Michelman, legal director of the ACLU of the District of Columbia, said in a statement after the Monday ruling. How has the legal case proceeded? The ACLU and Democracy Forward preemptively sued Trump hours before the March 15 deportations began, saying five Venezuelan men held at a Texas immigration detention center were at imminent risk of removal under the Alien Enemies Act. U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg blocked their deportation, prompting an immediate Justice Department appeal. Later that day, Boasberg issued a new order to stop the deportations being carried out under the centuries-old law, and said any planes in the air needed to turn around. By then, though, two ICE Air planes were heading across the Gulf of Mexico and toward Central America. Neither came back. Mark Sherman and Tim Sullivan, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
Want more housing market stories from Lance Lamberts ResiClub in your inbox? Subscribe to the ResiClub newsletter. Speaking to ResiClub in December, Jay Bray, CEO of mortgage servicer Mr. Cooper, told me that real estate would see a lot of mergers and acquisitions in 2025and that Mr. Cooper was out shoppingas the industry continues to grind through the prolonged housing activity slump that started back in summer 2022. You’ve seen consolidation already. If you think about this industry going forward, you’re going to need a balanced business model. You’re going to need the capability to invest in technology, to use everybody’s favorite two initials: AI,” Bray said in December. “That requires scale, that requires capital, that requires a healthy balance sheet. So I think as long as we’re in this kind of grind it out origination market, I don’t see any reason you will not see more consolidation happen. The stronger players will continue to get stronger, to some degree, and continue to look for opportunities to consolidate. Bray added that: We are in the stronger category . . . We’ve probably done more acquisitions than anybody in the industry, by far, and so, yeah, we’re still in the market for that We will be active and looking for opportunities. Bray was right that a big deal loomedonly the hunter became the hunted. On March 31, mortgage lending giant Rocket Companies (owner of Rocket Mortgage, formerly known as Quicken Loans) announced it had reached an agreement to acquire Mr. Cooper for $9.4 billion. Rocket Companies claims that, combined, it will service more than $2.1 trillion in loan volume, including one in six mortgages in America. Rocket Companies CEO Varun Krishna [Photo: Rocket Companies] “Servicing is a critical pillar of homeownership alongside home search and mortgage origination,” said Varun Krishna, CEO of Rocket Companies, in the press release announcing the deal. “With the right data and AI infrastructure we will deliver the right products at the right time. That’s how we build lifelong relationships, by proactively unlocking benefits and meeting needs before they arise. We look forward to welcoming Mr. Cooper’s nearly 7 million clients.” This deal came just three weeks after Rocket Companies announced on March 10th that it struck an agreement to buy Redfin in a $1.75 billion deal. Whats going on? Rocket Companies is strategically positioning itself as a giant force in residential real estate, aiming to create a one-stop shop for homebuyers by merging Redfins customer funnel and Mr. Coopers mortgage servicing with its existing mortgage lending business. “Its becoming increasingly clear that Zillows true competition isnt CoStarits Rocket,” Amanda Orson, CEO of real estate marketplace Galleon, tells ResiClub. “Everyones been watching CoStars $1 billion ad blitz with Homes.com, but their residential play is burning cash with no meaningful traction. Meanwhile, Rocket is executing something far more ambitiousand more dangerous: Theyre buying the full residential real estate stack.” Redfin handles front-of-house customer acquisition, and Rocket does mortgage origination and lending, where it’s already the dominant direct-to-consumer player. Finally, Mr. Cooper has a $2.1 trillion mortgage servicing portfolio and 4.6 million customers. Says Orson: “This is vertical integration on an entirely new scale. Orson adds that there are two major forces at play right now in the real estate industry: changes in the commission structure and a new administration that appears more friendly to mergers and acquisitions. “The real estate transaction itself is undergoing tectonic change,” says Orson. “[The National Association of Realtors] settlement is just the start. We’re watching the unbundling of a 112-year-old commission structure. A wave of agentless transactions is comingand Rocket is positioning to serve them end-to-end.” Zillows current model relies heavily on agent commissions ($1.2 billion of its $1.9 billion in revenue), says Orson: “Theyve started to pivot into mortgage origination and full-stack products, but the scale Rocket already commands in direct-to-consumer lending puts them in a league of their own.” Plus, the new administration is a tailwind for M&A, she adds. “Rocket is taking advantage of this moment with bold moves, consolidating distribution, infrastructure, and recurring revenue,” says Orson. “Both Zillow and Rocket are chasing verticalization, but Rocket is further alongand playing to win. They now control the entire journey: from lead to loan to lifetime servicing. Zillow still has front-of-funnel traffic, for nowbut Rocket has monetization. Orson says that CoStarthe commercial real estate giant that owns Homes.com and was trying to compete with Zillowis the biggest loser in all of this. “Their residential push isnt sticky, isnt scaled, and at $1 billion [per] year in ad spend is starting to look like a costly distraction.
Category:
E-Commerce
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said he wants communities to stop fluoridating water, and he is setting the gears of government in motion to help make that happen. Kennedy this week said he plans to tell the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stop recommending fluoridation in communities nationwide. And he said hes assembling a task force of health experts to study the issue and make new recommendations. At the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced it would review new scientific information on potential health risks of fluoride in drinking water. The EPA sets the maximum level allowed in public water systems. Here’s a look at how reversing fluoride policy has become an action item under President Donald Trump’s administration. The benefits of fluoride Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the CDC. In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and in 1962 set guidelines for how much should be added to water. Fluoride can come from a number of sources, but drinking water is the main one for Americans, researchers say. Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population gets fluoridated drinking water, according to CDC data. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water was long considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century. The American Dental Association credits it with reducing tooth decay by more than 25% in children and adults. About one-third of community water systems 17,000 out of 51,000 across the U.S. serving more than 60% of the population fluoridated their water, according to a 2022 CDC analysis. The potential problems of too much fluoride The CDC currently recommends 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water. Over time, studies have documented potential problems when people get much more than that. Excess fluoride intake has been associated with streaking or spots on teeth. And studies also have traced a link between excess fluoride and brain development. A report last year by the federal governments National Toxicology Program, which summarized studies conducted in Canada, China, India, Iran, Pakistan and Mexico, concluded that drinking water with more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter more than twice the CDC’s recommended level was associated with lower IQs in kids. Meanwhile, last year, a federal judge ordered the EPA to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that its not certain fluoride is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that research pointed to an unreasonable risk that it could be. Kennedy has railed against fluoride Kennedy, a former environmental lawyer, has called fluoride a dangerous neurotoxin and an industrial waste tied to a range of health dangers. He has said its been associated with arthritis, bone breaks, and thyroid disease. Some studies have suggested such links might exist, usually at higher-than-recommended fluoride levels, though some reviewers have questioned the quality of available evidence and said no definitive conclusions can be drawn. How fluoride recommendations can be changed The CDC’s recommendations are widely followed but not mandatory. State and local governments decide whether to add fluoride to water and, if so, how much as long as it doesnt exceed the EPA’s limit of 4 milligrams per liter. So Kennedy cant order communities to stop fluoridation, but he can tell the CDC to stop recommending it. It would be customary to convene a panel of experts to comb through the research and assess the evidence that speak to the pros and cons of water fluoridation. But Kennedy has the power to stop or change a CDC recommendation without that. The power lies with the secretary, but public trust would erode if recommendations are changed without a clear scientific basis, said Lawrence Gostin, a public health law expert at Georgetown University. If youre really serious about this, you dont just come in and change it, he said. You ask somebody like the National Academy of Sciences to do a study and then you follow their recommendations. On Monday, Kennedy said he was forming a task force to focus on fluoride, while at the same time saying he would order the CDC to stop recommending it. HHS officials did not answer immediately questions seeking more information about what the task force would be doing. Some places are already pulling back on fluoridation Utah recently became the first state to ban fluoride in drinking water, and legislators elsewhere are looking at the issue. An Associated Press analysis of CDC data for 36 states shows that many communities have halted fluoridation in recent years. Over the last six years, at least 734 water systems that consistently reported their data in those states have stopped fluoridating water, according to the AP’s analysis. Mississippi alone accounted for more than 1 in 5 of those water systems that stopped. Most water systems that discontinued fluoridation mainly did so to save money, said Melissa Parker, the Mississippi state health departments assistant senior deputy. During the pandemic, Mississippis health department allowed local water systems to temporarily cease fluoridating because they could not purchase sodium fluoride in the midst of global supply chain issues. Many never restarted, Parker said. CDC funding for fluoride is typically a small factor Since 2003, CDC has funded a limited number of state oral health programs through cooperative agreements. The agreements run in cycles, and at the beginning of this year 15 states were each receiving $380,000 over three years. The money can be used on a number of things, including collecting data on people with dental problems, dental care and technical assistance for community water fluoridation activities. The current oral health funding is going to Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Caolina, Virginia and Wisconsin. The states are told not to use the money for chemicals, because the funding is intended to help set up fluoridation, not for everyday expenses, federal officials have said. South Carolina, for example, sets aside up to $50,000 to help communities in that state fluoridate. Iowa spends about $65,000 to promote community water fluoridation. Earlier this year, CDC officials declined to answer questions about how much of the total oral health money has been going toward fluoridation. Now, there is no one to ask: Last week, the CDCs entire 20-person Division of Oral Health was eliminated as part of widespread government staffing cuts. Congress appropriated money to CDC specifically to support oral health programs, and some congressional staffers say the agency must distribute those funds no matter who is running the HHS or CDC. But Trump-driven budget cuts have struck at a number of programs that Congress had called for, and it’s not clear what will happen to the CDC oral health funding. Fluoridation is relatively cheap compared with other water department expenses, and most communities simply incorporate the cost into the water rates charged to customers, according to the American Water Works Association. In Erie, Pennsylvania, for example, fluoridating water for 220,000 people costs about $35,000 to $45,000 a year and is entirely funded by water rates, said Craig Palmer, the chief executive of the Erie Water Authority. So cutting off the CDC money would not have much impact on most communities, some experts said, although it could be more impactful for some smaller, rural communities. The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institutes Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Mike Stobbe and Kasturi Pananjady, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||