Business
Supreme Court signals it will claw back federal agency power on January 17, 2024 at 7:26 pm Business News | The Hill
The Supreme Court’s conservatives appeared inclined to cut back the regulatory power of federal agencies, with at least several justices during a pair of arguments Wednesday seeming ready to overrule a legal doctrine that has bolstered agencies’ authority for decades.
Over more than three hours of argument, the justices put the Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer on defense as she sought to preserve Chevron deference, which instructs courts to defer to agencies’ interpretation of federal law if it could have multiple meanings.
The practice has strengthened presidential administrations’ ability to regulate wide aspects of daily life. The range of examples referenced at the arguments revealed the breadth of Chevron’s impact: artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency, environmental protections and more.
A majority of justices appeared sympathetic to the conservative lawyers who urged them to outright overrule the precedent or at least narrow its scope, which would mark a major legal victory for business and anti-regulatory interests.
In particular, three members of the high court’s conservative wing — Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — reiterated their long-publicized concerns about the precedent’s viability.
“The government always wins,” Gorsuch said.
Critics contend that Chevron requires judges to abdicate their responsibility to interpret the law. They also note a lack of consensus on when a statute is ambiguous enough to trigger deference to an agency and how some federal judges have openly criticized the doctrine.
“Should that be a clue that something needs to be fixed here?” Gorsuch said.
The court’s three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, meanwhile, expressed opposition to overturning Chevron. They emphasized a desire to defer to subject-matter experts at agencies when ambiguous, complicated policy issues arise, rather than having a judge attempt to draw the line.
“My concern is that if we take away something like Chevron, the court will then suddenly become a policymaker,” said Jackson.
Kagan gave a hypothetical about whether a judge or the Department of Health and Human Services should be the one to decide whether a cholesterol reducer should be considered a “drug” or a “dietary supplement.”
“In that case I would rather have people at HHS telling me whether this new product was a dietary supplement or a drug,” she said.
Kagan added at one point, “Judges should know what they don’t know.”
The liberals also questioned whether overturning Chevron would unleash a flood of litigation, as people who lost cases because of the doctrine would seek to have their issues reheard.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who posed fierce questions to both sides, also raised concerns about a shock to the system.
The lawyers attempting to overturn Chevron pushed back on the notion, insisting that the thousands of decisions that have invoked the doctrine over the past four decades would still be considered precedent and subject to strong protection.
And some conservative justices argued the opposite, contending that it is Chevron that has created shocks by giving the executive branch a wide license to flip-flop on its interpretations of statutes to fit its policy goals.
“The reality of how this works is Chevron itself has shocks to the system when a new administration comes in,” Kavanaugh said.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts, who has been reluctant to overrule the court’s precedents, questioned whether the doctrine had already been overruled in practice. The Supreme Court has not invoked Chevron since 2016, and in some recent cases, the justices have either enacted carveouts or simply ignored the precedent.
“How much of an actual question on the ground is this?” Roberts asked.
The justices weighed whether to replace Chevron with another, more narrow test known as Skidmore, under which a judge would decide to defer to an agency only if the agency’s argument is persuasive. As part of that analysis, judges examine consistency or whether an agency has flip-flopped.
Kavanaugh characterized Skidmore as being about “the power to persuade not the power to control.”
The high court on Wednesday considered the weighty dispute through two separate cases that are near-identical.
In both, herring fishermen are challenging a rule mandating their companies fund federal monitors on-board their vessels. Invoking Chevron, lower courts deferred to the agency and upheld the rule.
Each group of plaintiffs had a veteran Supreme Court advocate arguing for them and is also backed by an anti-regulatory group.
The justices first heard from Roman Martinez, a partner at Latham & Watkins, who is representing a Rhode Island-based fishing fleet alongside the conservative New Civil Liberties Alliance.
And in the second case, the plaintiffs are represented by the conservative Cause of Action Institute and Paul Clement, who served as former President George W. Bush’s top Supreme Court lawyer and has successfully argued cases that resulted in some of the biggest wins for conservatives at the high court in recent years.
Jackson is recusing herself from that case, as she had heard oral arguments in the dispute while sitting on a lower court.
Decisions in the cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, are expected by the end of June.
Court Battles, Business, News, Chevron doctrine, Supreme Court The Supreme Court’s conservatives appeared inclined to cut back the regulatory power of federal agencies, with at least several justices during a pair of arguments Wednesday seeming ready to overrule a legal doctrine that has bolstered agencies’ authority for decades. Over more than three hours of argument, the justices put the Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer on…
Business
Google Accused Of Favoring White, Asian Staff As It Reaches $28 Million Deal That Excludes Black Workers
Google has tentatively agreed to a $28 million settlement in a California class‑action lawsuit alleging that white and Asian employees were routinely paid more and placed on faster career tracks than colleagues from other racial and ethnic backgrounds.
- A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge has granted preliminary approval, calling the deal “fair” and noting that it could cover more than 6,600 current and former Google workers employed in the state between 2018 and 2024.
How The Discrimination Claims Emerged
The lawsuit was brought by former Google employee Ana Cantu, who identifies as Mexican and racially Indigenous and worked in people operations and cloud departments for about seven years. Cantu alleges that despite strong performance, she remained stuck at the same level while white and Asian colleagues doing similar work received higher pay, higher “levels,” and more frequent promotions.
Cantu’s complaint claims that Latino, Indigenous, Native American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and Alaska Native employees were systematically underpaid compared with white and Asian coworkers performing substantially similar roles. The suit also says employees who raised concerns about pay and leveling saw raises and promotions withheld, reinforcing what plaintiffs describe as a two‑tiered system inside the company.
Why Black Employees Were Left Out
Cantu’s legal team ultimately agreed to narrow the class to employees whose race and ethnicity were “most closely aligned” with hers, a condition that cleared the path to the current settlement.
The judge noted that Black employees were explicitly excluded from the settlement class after negotiations, meaning they will not share in the $28 million payout even though they were named in earlier versions of the case. Separate litigation on behalf of Black Google employees alleging racial bias in pay and promotions remains pending, leaving their claims to be resolved in a different forum.
What The Settlement Provides
Of the $28 million total, about $20.4 million is expected to be distributed to eligible class members after legal fees and penalties are deducted. Eligible workers include those in California who self‑identified as Hispanic, Latinx, Indigenous, Native American, American Indian, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and/or Alaska Native during the covered period.
Beyond cash payments, Google has also agreed to take steps aimed at addressing the alleged disparities, including reviewing pay and leveling practices for racial and ethnic gaps. The settlement still needs final court approval at a hearing scheduled for later this year, and affected employees will have a chance to opt out or object before any money is distributed.
H2: Google’s Response And The Broader Stakes
A Google spokesperson has said the company disputes the allegations but chose to settle in order to move forward, while reiterating its public commitment to fair pay, hiring, and advancement for all employees. The company has emphasized ongoing internal audits and equity initiatives, though plaintiffs argue those efforts did not prevent or correct the disparities outlined in the lawsuit.
For many observers, the exclusion of Black workers from the settlement highlights the legal and strategic complexities of class‑action discrimination cases, especially in large, diverse workplaces. The outcome of the remaining lawsuit brought on behalf of Black employees, alongside this $28 million deal, will help define how one of the world’s most powerful tech companies is held accountable for alleged racial inequities in pay and promotion.
At just 29, Luana Lopes Lara has taken a title that usually belongs to pop stars and consumer‑app founders.
Multiple business outlets now recognize her as the world’s youngest self‑made woman billionaire, after her company Kalshi hit an 11 billion dollar valuation in a new funding round.
That round, a 1 billion dollar Series E led by Paradigm with Sequoia Capital, Andreessen Horowitz, CapitalG and others participating, instantly pushed both co‑founders into the three‑comma club. Estimates place Luana’s personal stake at roughly 12 percent of Kalshi, valuing her net worth at about 1.3 billion dollars—wealth tied directly to equity she helped create rather than inheritance.
Kalshi itself is a big part of why her ascent matters.
Founded in 2019, the New York–based company runs a federally regulated prediction‑market exchange where users trade yes‑or‑no contracts on real‑world events, from inflation reports to elections and sports outcomes.
As of late 2025, the platform has reached around 50 billion dollars in annualized trading volume, a thousand‑fold jump from roughly 300 million the year before, according to figures cited in TechCrunch and other financial press. That hyper‑growth convinced investors that event contracts are more than a niche curiosity, and it is this conviction—expressed in billions of dollars of new capital—that turned Luana’s share of Kalshi into a billion‑dollar fortune almost overnight.
Her path to that point is unusually demanding even by founder standards. Luana grew up in Brazil and trained at the Bolshoi Theater School’s Brazilian campus, where reports say she spent up to 13 hours a day in class and rehearsal, competing for places in a program that accepts fewer than 3 percent of applicants. After a stint dancing professionally in Austria, she pivoted into academics, enrolling at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to study computer science and mathematics and later completing a master’s in engineering.
During summers she interned at major firms including Bridgewater Associates and Citadel, gaining a front‑row view of how global macro traders constantly bet on future events—but without a simple, regulated way for ordinary people to do the same.
That realization shaped Kalshi’s founding thesis and ultimately her billionaire status. Together with co‑founder Tarek Mansour, whom she met at MIT, Luana spent years persuading lawyers and U.S. regulators that a fully legal event‑trading exchange could exist under commodities law. Reports say more than 60 law firms turned them down before one agreed to help, and the company then spent roughly three years in licensing discussions with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission before gaining approval. The payoff is visible in 2025’s numbers: an 11‑billion‑dollar valuation, a 1‑billion‑dollar fresh capital injection, and a founder’s stake that makes Luana Lopes Lara not just a compelling story but a data point in how fast wealth can now be created at the intersection of finance, regulation, and software.
America’s job market is facing an unprecedented crisis—and nowhere is this more painfully obvious than at Harvard, the world’s gold standard for elite education. A stunning 25% of Harvard’s MBA class of 2025 remains unemployed months after graduation, the highest rate recorded in university history. The Ivy League dream has become a harsh wakeup call, and it’s sending shockwaves across the professional landscape.
Jobless at the Top: Why Graduates Can’t Find Work
For decades, a Harvard diploma was considered a golden ticket. Now, graduates send out hundreds of résumés, often from their parents’ homes, only to get ghosted or auto-rejected by machines. Only 30% of all 2025 graduates nationally have found full-time work in their field, and nearly half feel unprepared for the workforce. “Go to college, get a good job“—that promise is slipping away, even for the smartest and most driven.
Tech’s Iron Grip: ATS and AI Gatekeepers
Applicant tracking systems (ATS) and AI algorithms have become ruthless gatekeepers. If a résumé doesn’t perfectly match the keywords or formatting demanded by the bots, it never reaches human eyes. The age of human connection is gone—now, you’re just a data point to be sorted and discarded.
AI screening has gone beyond basic qualifications. New tools “read” for inferred personality and tone, rejecting candidates for reasons they never see. Worse, up to half of online job listings may be fake—created simply to collect résumés, pad company metrics, or fulfill compliance without ever intending to fill the role.
The Experience Trap: Entry-Level Jobs Require Years
It’s not just Harvard grads who are hurting. Entry-level roles demand years of experience, unpaid internships, and portfolios that resemble a seasoned professional, not a fresh graduate. A bachelor’s degree, once the key to entry, is now just the price of admission. Overqualified candidates compete for underpaid jobs, often just to survive.
One Harvard MBA described applying to 1,000 jobs with no results. Companies, inundated by applications, are now so selective that only those who precisely “game the system” have a shot. This has fundamentally flipped the hiring pyramid: enormous demand for experience, shrinking chances for new entrants, and a brutal gauntlet for anyone not perfectly groomed by internships and coaching.
Burnout Before Day One
The cost is more than financial—mental health and optimism are collapsing among the newest generation of workers. Many come out of elite programs and immediately end up in jobs that don’t require degrees, or take positions far below their qualifications just to pay the bills. There’s a sense of burnout before careers even begin, trapping talent in a cycle of exhaustion, frustration, and disillusionment.
Cultural Collapse: From Relationships to Algorithms
What’s really broken? The culture of hiring itself. Companies have traded trust, mentorship, and relationships for metrics, optimizations, and cost-cutting. Managers no longer hire on potential—they rely on machines, rankings, and personality tests that filter out individuality and reward those who play the algorithmic game best.
AI has automated the very entry-level work that used to build careers—research, drafting, and analysis—and erased the first rung of the professional ladder for thousands of new graduates. The result is a workforce filled with people who know how to pass tests, not necessarily solve problems or drive innovation.
The Ghost Job Phenomenon
Up to half of all listings for entry-level jobs may be “ghost jobs”—positions posted online for optics, compliance, or future needs, but never intended for real hiring. This means millions of job seekers spend hours on applications destined for digital purgatory, further fueling exhaustion and cynicism.
Not Lazy—Just Locked Out
Despite the headlines, the new class of unemployed graduates is not lazy or entitled—they are overqualified, underleveraged, and battered by a broken process. Harvard’s brand means less to AI and ATS systems than the right keyword or résumé format. Human judgment has been sidelined; individuality is filtered out.
What’s Next? Back to Human Connection
Unless companies rediscover the value of human potential, mentorship, and relationships, the job search will remain a brutal numbers game—one that even the “best and brightest” struggle to win. The current system doesn’t just hurt workers—it holds companies back from hiring bold, creative talent who don’t fit perfect digital boxes.
Key Facts:
- 25% of Harvard MBAs unemployed, highest on record
- Only 30% of 2025 grads nationwide have jobs in their field
- Nearly half of grads feel unprepared for real work
- Up to 50% of entry-level listings are “ghost jobs”
- AI and ATS have replaced human judgment at most companies
If you’ve felt this struggle—or see it happening around you—share your story in the comments. And make sure to subscribe for more deep dives on the reality of today’s economy and job market.
This is not just a Harvard problem. It’s a sign that America’s job engine is running on empty, and it’s time to reboot—before another generation is locked out.
Disney Brings Beloved Characters to ChatGPT After $1 Billion OpenAI Deal
Google Accused Of Favoring White, Asian Staff As It Reaches $28 Million Deal That Excludes Black Workers
