Supreme Court, Bloomberg, Greg Stohr discussed on Bloomberg Law
To boost payouts to shareholders the longest weekly rally in treasuries since two thousand twelve may find an even higher gear this as bond traders turned their focus to Asaka Japan where world leaders head next week, four G twenty meeting heels on tenure treasuries broke below two percent for the first time since two thousand sixteen this week this after the Federal Reserve signal that's ready to lower borrowing costs strategists. See little standing in the way of even lower yields Hornbach is global head of interest rates. Strategy at Morgan Stanley Ellen Zeltner has are fed call. And she has the feds cutting rates by fifty basis points in July and then doing nothing for the foreseeable future after that. So in that scenario, we think the tenure yield will end the around two percent. The ten year note was last quoted at a yield of two point zero five percent Boris Johnson's bid to become the UK's next prime minister was thrown into turmoil after an argument with his partner prompted police to visit his London residence. Officers were called to the home. Johnson shares with Kyrie Simon's shortly after midnight Friday, six hours after he was confirmed as the front runner in the race to succeed Theresa May police said they found no cause for action. But the news is dominated Saturday's UK newspapers and threatens to damage Johnson's campaign at a critical time in the conservative party, leadership contest, global news, twenty four hours a day on air and ticked up on Twitter. Powered by more than twenty seven hundred journalists and analysts in one hundred twenty countries. I'm Susanna Palmer. This is Bloomberg. Welcome to Bloomberg law. I'm June Grosso ahead in this hour. The supreme court dumps another gay wedding cake dispute the Trump administration is trying something new with its environmental agenda following the rules Cuban exiles are suing multinational companies over property confiscated by the Castro regime. And when the tent's Justice talks, the supreme court listens. The supreme court is entering the homestretch of its term. So those questions we've been pondering for some time. We'll all be answered by the end of next week. The court followed precedent this week in one major case that might have extended the impact of President Trump's pardon power. The justices left intact, the separate sovereigns doctrine. It's a decades old rule that limits, the scope of the constitutional ban on double jeopardy. Bloomberg supreme court reporter, Greg Stohr joins me so Greg tell us about that seven to two decision in gamble. The US this is, as you said, sort of an exception to the notion that the government can't prosecute you twice for the same underlying conduct. The supreme court has said for decades and really dating back to the nineteenth century, that it's okay to have multiple prosecutions if they're coming from different fabrics, namely the federal government and a state government that they both have the right to prosecute somebody for the. Conduct. And this case asked the supreme court to overturn those rulings and overturn the separate sovereignty doctrine, when the court agreed to take up the case, there was some thought that they were pretty serious about thinking about doing that. As it turns out, it wasn't close as he said, it was a seven to two decision. The court reaffirmed the doctrine in essentially left law, as it's been for decades. I read that there were jokes that this case gamble, the US should have been renamed Manafort, the Muller, explained the connection, one big reason, people were watching this case is if the court had overturned, the separate sovereigns doctrine that might have Mansa that if Donald Trump were to pardon Paul Manafort, but is left open the possibility that, that might have also precluded some steep prosecutions for the same underlying conduct. There are a lot of kind of qualifications to that. It wasn't totally clear that it would have prevented the state of New York, for example, from going after Paul Manafort lightly. Different underlying conduct. But that was a big potential implication, had the supreme court gone the other way now in one case that we've discussed several times, because the court has been considering it for something like three months, the supreme court wiped out a ruling against an argon bakery. That refused to make a wedding cake for same sex. Couple sounds awfully familiar. Yeah. This is a strange outcome. This case is very familiar because there's an awful lot like the case court resolved last term mckay's called masterpiece. That was a Colorado bakery. That refused to make a cake to celebrate a same sex wedding involving two men and the supreme court decided that case very narrowly. They sided with the Baker, but they said it was because one of the commissioners on the Colorado civil rights commission had suggested that she for animus towards religion. And this case that of Oregon also very, very similar it was a bakery. That refused to make a cake for same sex wedding. In this case had to pay a penalty of hundred and thirty five thousand dollars and the supreme court for three and a half months dithered over what they were going to do with this case. And at the end of the day, the court said would just kick it back to the lower court to the Oregon courts to reconsider it in light of our decision in the masterpiece case really wake sidestepping. The underlying. Issues not clear why the court doesn't want to get back into this. It certainly was the case. They could have granted instead, they set aside the fine kick the case back out of the lower court. I'm sure we'll be talking about this issue again, at some point, but we won't be doing it at the beginning of next term. What does seems to say is that they're putting a case off, which would be very controversial religious beliefs, basically restricting LGBTQ rights? So it won't come up in a year when there's going to be presented election. But certainly one way of looking at it and keep in mind, they're already going to have one actually, he LGBT cases, all involving whether employers can discriminate against workers, because they are into the cases gay, or in the other case transgender, and it may have been at least for some of the justices that they don't wanna have, you know, they're being an entire fem- with an X term, leading up to the election or the court might be seen as rolling back. LGBT. Writes now, there was actually an interesting case involved land once owned by Thomas Jefferson and Virginia uranium band. So this is actually, the, the nation's largest noon, uranium deposits in Virginia and Virginia has banned mining uranium mining in the state, and the landowners, with support from the Trump administration said that runs afoul. That is a violation of this federal law. That says only the federal government has the power over nuclear safety. So this whole notion of could be dangerous because we extract this uranium from the ground. They claimed that is something only the federal government can regulate the supreme court said, no, we disagree. The states have always had power over mining and nothing in the federal law affects that power over mining, this federal law gives the, the US government authority over what happens to the uranium after it's extracted from, from the ground, but not before, and therefore we're going to uphold this Virginia ban on uranium mining, Greg. Does this have implications for? For the environmental, litigation that we expect to see or does it stand on its own terms. It probably feeds on its own terms. You know, there's a lot in these opinions that you've spent some time, scrutinizing, there was to me, very interesting dispute between members of the majority in this case, where the more conservative justices said, you know, we don't want to second. Guess what? The state's motives were in enacting this sort of legislation. And the more liberal justices said, you know, we don't have to speak in such broad sweeping principles about our power to second guesses state based on their motives is pretty clear. The justices had some other cases in mind and it may take a while the figure out exactly what they're thinking of. Thanks, greg. I'm sure we'll be talking to you next week. That's Bloomberg news. Supreme court reporter Greg Stohr. Coming up on Bloomberg law. The Trump administration has a new weapon in its environmental agenda following the rules on June Grosso..