Business & Economy

On The Money: Governors rethink opening bars, restaurants amid spike in COVID-19 cases | Spiking cases threaten fragile economic recovery | Supreme Court rules consumer bureau director can be fired at will

Happy Monday and welcome back to On The Money. I’m Sylvan Lane, and here’s your nightly guide to everything affecting your bills, bank account and bottom line.

See something I missed? Let me know at slane@digital-release.thehill.com or tweet me @SylvanLane. And if you like your newsletter, you can subscribe to it here: http://bit.ly/1NxxW2N.

Write us with tips, suggestions and news: slane@digital-release.thehill.com, njagoda@digital-release.thehill.com and nelis@digital-release.thehill.com. Follow us on Twitter: @SylvanLane, @NJagoda and @NivElis.

THE BIG DEAL—Governors rethink opening bars, restaurants amid spike in COVID-19 cases: State and local officials are facing pressure to keep bars and indoor dining closed as the U.S. reckons with another upswing in COVID-19 infections weeks after lockdown measures were lifted. 

“I think across all these states, we just can’t have bars — I’m not sure that we can even run restaurants where people are sitting indoors, nightclubs. Anything that gathers people indoors I think at this moment is way too risky and has to be dialed back,” said Ashish Jha, professor of global health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, on NBC’s “Today” on Monday.

The Hill’s Jessie Hellmann explains here.

The resurgence : 

The economic fallout: The surging coronavirus is threatening to derail a budding recovery from the pandemic-driven recession.

With the hardest-hit states now taking lockdown steps reminiscent of March and April, economists warn the road to recovery may get a lot more painful, with some regions weighing down the rest of the country’s economic prospects. That scenario would also deal a significant blow to President Trump, whose reelection campaign focuses heavily on the economy.

“Renewed restrictions in some cities, counties, and states already are underway, and more will follow,” wrote Ian Shepherdson, founder and chief economist of research consultancy Pantheon Macroeconomics, in a Friday research note.

“With fear of the disease keeping people home, the recovery [in] the South — which is already faltering — could easily go into reverse,” he added.

I have more here.

“Consumer spending sprung back to life in May and registered a record 8.1% advance as the nation reopened. But, don’t be fooled, the rebound was only partial and largely supported by April’s massive fiscal stimulus injection,” wrote Lydia Boussour, senior U.S. economist at research firm Oxford Economics, in a Friday analysis.

“A failure to provide additional fiscal stimulus would further threaten the nascent recovery,” she added.

 

Read more: The two top congressional Democrats are urging Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to start negotiations on the next coronavirus relief package, as the country sees an uptick in cases. 

 

On tap tomorrow

LEADING THE DAY

Supreme Court rules consumer bureau director can be fired at will: The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is unconstitutional, striking down the protections that prevented the agency’s director from being fired at will.

The court said in a 5-4 decision, which hands a victory to Republicans, that the firing protections are an unconstitutional restraint on the president’s ability to oversee executive branch agencies.

“Such an agency lacks a foundation in historical practice and clashes with constitutional structure by concentrating power in a unilateral actor insulated from Presidential control,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority decision, joined by his conservative colleagues.

“The agency may therefore continue to operate, but its Director, in light of our decision, must be removable by the President at will,” Roberts added.

The Hill’s Harper Neidig breaks it down here.

The background: The CFPB was established as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act with a single director to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term. Under the act, the director could only be removed by the president for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance.”

The decision: The court ruled on Monday, however, that the arrangement undermines the administration’s ability to pick executive branch officers. Roberts wrote that those for-cause protections are unlawful when applied to an agency led by a single director but are acceptable for regulators led by multiple commissioners, like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission.

The four liberal justices — Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — dissented, accusing the majority of inventing an arbitrary distinction between the CFPB and other agencies.

The fallout: The ruling does not dismantle the controversial financial regulator but it does settle some questions that had long cast a shadow over the Obama-era bureau. Progressives who opposed the legal challenge and conservatives who supported it largely agreed that the decision would do little to curb the CFPB’s immense power.

Even so, attorneys who represent financial firms facing probes by the consumer agency say Monday’s ruling in Seila Law vs. CFPB may have opened a pathway to challenging nearly a decade’s worth of sweeping rules and steep penalties.

“It certainly puts a lot of it into suspect and scrutiny,” said Joann Needleman, an attorney at law firm Clark Hill who represents clients under investigation by the CFPB. “Anybody who’s got an enforcement action now is going to consider what challenges that they will bring to the court.”

I explain why here.

 

IRS watchdog details coronavirus-related challenges for taxpayers: The IRS’s in-house watchdog on Monday released a report describing challenges facing taxpayers in light of the coronavirus’s effects on IRS operations.

“The spread of COVID-19 brought much of the country to a grinding halt, and that was largely true of the IRS’s operations — and right in the middle of the filing season no less,” National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins wrote. “Despite the IRS’s best efforts, there have been notable adverse taxpayer impacts.”

The Hill’s Naomi Jagoda tells us more about the challenges facing the IRS here.

GOOD TO KNOW

ODDS AND ENDS