Arguably THE Most-Impactful E/O So Far
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Login or register to improve your experience
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Full-Text Search & Archives
Leverage, the book
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in securities or firms mentioned and have no duty to disclose same.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must be complete (NOT a "pitch"; those get you blocked as a spammer), include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2025-01-23 06:50 by Karl Denninger
in Federal Government , 506 references Ignore this thread
Arguably THE Most-Impactful E/O So Far
[Comments enabled]

It's not the 14th Amendment targeted one, although that's important -- and is a closer question in terms of whether it will stand up (the ACLU and others have already challenged it although I'd argue the ACLU's "putative plaintiff", which you must have of course, lacks standing and thus their suit should be immediately dismissed.)

No, its this E/O: ENDING ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION AND RESTORING MERIT-BASED OPPORTUNITY

The E/O begins:

Section 1.  Purpose.  Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans.  As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans. 

This is key.  The Civil Rights Act is in fact color, race, religion and other "characteristic" neutral.  It not only creates no privilege it explicitly denies privilege based on any particularized category, and the Executive is in fact required to enforce said law.

It then goes much further and:

(ii)   The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs within the Department of Labor shall immediately cease:
(A)  Promoting “diversity”;
(B)  Holding Federal contractors and subcontractors responsible for taking “affirmative action”; and
(C)  Allowing or encouraging Federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin.
(iii)  In accordance with Executive Order 13279 of December 12, 2002 (Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations), the employment, procurement, and contracting practices of Federal contractors and subcontractors shall not consider race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin in ways that violate the Nation’s civil rights laws.

Contract with the government either directly or via subcontracts and vendors?  All "DEI", racial/religious/whatever preference and "set aside" provisions must immediately cease or you are in violation and subject to having those contracts terminated for cause as compliance is deemed by that order to be material to the government's payment obligations.  Further, the next section also goes on to require certification of compliance which makes a false certification a federal criminal offense and now the issue is no longer about contract loss -- it then comes with the risk of prison time that can be imposed upon the directors, officers and anyone else falsely-certifying (or failing to investigate as to the truth) that they in fact are in compliance.

And lest anyone think this will be "slow rolled", well, Trump took care of that too:

(b)  To further inform and advise me so that my Administration may formulate appropriate and effective civil-rights policy, the Attorney General, within 120 days of this order, in consultation with the heads of relevant agencies and in coordination with the Director of OMB, shall submit a report to the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy containing recommendations for enforcing Federal civil-rights laws and taking other appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI.  The report shall contain a proposed strategic enforcement plan identifying:
(i)    Key sectors of concern within each agency’s jurisdiction;
(ii)   The most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners in each sector of concern;
(iii)  A plan of specific steps or measures to deter DEI programs or principles (whether specifically denominated “DEI” or otherwise) that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.  As a part of this plan, each agency shall identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars;

The larger you are, and thus the more impact you've had on Americans through the practice of these unlawful acts, the more likely you are to be tagged for said enforcement.

This is precisely the correct way to target enforcement: It not only sends the strongest message but in addition it helps the largest number of people at once per action taken.

Sec. 5.  Other Actions.  Within 120 days of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education shall jointly issue guidance to all State and local educational agencies that receive Federal funds, as well as all institutions of higher education that receive Federal grants or participate in the Federal student loan assistance program under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq., regarding the measures and practices required to comply with Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023).

Oh, Harvard thought they were singled out eh and other institutions thought they'd gotten away with it?  Nope.  Comply with that Supreme Court decision within your institution or lose federal funding of all sorts including federally guaranteed student loans and all grant programs.

All the E/O based "overrides" were in fact unlawful as they stood, in that the an Executive Order cannot override a Statute.  However, they did give corporations and educational institutions quite a bit of cover when it came to such policies as they made quite clear that the DOJ, OMB and other Executive elements would not bring investigations and charges, nor terminate contracts for violations as those policies were what the Administration wanted despite them being blatantly illegal under long-standing Statute.

That has now all been ripped up and thrown in the trash where it belongs.

Oh by the way, for those who think the H-1b issue doesn't intersect with this you're wrong.  It intersects bigly because in point of fact that law does not permit advantaging people on the basis of said status yet firms do it all the time through various deceptive means including false certifications that they have not laid anyone off.  It is obviously prima-facie evidence that in fact those statutory requirements to not discriminate against Americans were violated when you have an American forced to train an H-1b replacement -- and yet we know that has and does occur on a regular basis.

Those who sit in board rooms, whether corporate or educational, may need a new pair of underwear right about now.

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 



 
No Comments Yet.....
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Page 1 of 105  First123456789Last
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Page 1 of 105  First123456789Last