The Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) is pleased to announce the launch of its new Free Trade Center. This new project highlights how the free flow of goods across borders benefits consumers, bolsters the American economy, and produces a more prosperous society. Free trade is facing an unprecedented attack from policymakers on both sides of the aisle. In recent years, the American public has experienced sharp increases in tariffs and the passing of regulations that curtail their ability to trade freely. Free trade agreements that have spurred the growth of the American economy and opened numerous markets for American businesses are being disparaged. Meanwhile, new opportunities for negotiations are being left behind. American taxpayers and consumers ultimately bear the costs of these decisions. They will experience price increases at the counter and lose access to goods and services that they want or need. Thus, TPA feels compelled to launch this center to provide resources to policymakers and their staff, highlighting the role of free trade in driving economic growth and lowering costs for consumers through increased competition. The Free Trade Center will work to compile the works authored by TPA staff and outside resources to become a one-stop-shop for the most up to date studies. To visit our site and learn more, click here.
 
Summer Reading: Supreme Court
 
Fashions are always changing, but one timeless rule is that heavy black robes are not beach attire. Unless, that is, if you are a Supreme Court justice dying to get some vacation after a string of momentous decisions. From regulatory deference to trademark law to social media meddling, the nine jurists on the bench have had plenty to say about some of the most consequential legal issues gripping America. That gives pundits plenty to pontificate about, politicians plenty to complain about, and the American people plenty to read about. Because Supreme Court opinions aren’t always the most riveting reads, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance is pleased to offer an abridged version. Of all the consequential cases decided during this blockbuster term, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo probably packs the biggest punch for consumers and taxpayers. The case challenged a Department of Commerce (DOC) regulation requiring fishermen to pay for federally mandated at-sea monitoring programs. The statute in question did not explicitly authorize the DOC to levy these fees, but the agency claimed the authority to do so anyway. The case turned on questions of judicial deference and interpretation.
 
A little background goes a long way toward understanding this landmark administrative law decision. In 1984, the Supreme Court held in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC (informally: Chevron) that federal regulatory agencies should have lots of leeway in interpreting tricky wording in congressional statutes that could have multiple meanings. The new standard established in Loper Bright will still give agencies wide discretion in implementing broad swaths of law, but actions must hew to the most reasonable interpretation of the legislative language. And if judges wind up interpreting something more narrowly than members of Congress would like, lawmakers can respond by doing their jobs by writing more precise pieces of legislation. The Supreme Court’s vision of itself as a referee doesn’t just apply to Congress and agencies.
 
Justices are often asked to resolve disagreements between lower courts, and sometimes, it’s better to remand cases back down to lower courts with some guiding principles and instructions. That’s exactly what happened in the cases NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice. These cases dealt with similar attempts by Texas and Florida to limit the free speech rights of private social media companies. Both states tried to bar social media platforms from taking action against user-generated speech based on viewpoint. Not only does this interfere with companies’ constitutionally protected right to “editorial discretion” (i.e., to control what speech appears on their platform), it is an entirely unworkable standard in practice. A circuit split ensued after trade group NetChoice sued both states. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Texas’s law while the Eleventh Circuit ruled against Florida’s. The majority opinion in the NetChoice cases emphatically supported the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning and rebuked the 5th Circuit’s. TPA policy analyst David McGarry explains how SCOTUS defended the First Amendment: “Writing for her colleagues, Justice Elena Kagan made clear that First Amendment precedent securing the right to editorial discretion does protect social-media platforms’ content-moderation policies. Her incisive reasoning indicated clearly that the statutes in question, which prescribe permissible modes of content moderation, violate platforms’ right to choose what third-party user-generated content to publish and promote and what to remove and hide...The majority opinion savaged the Fifth Circuit’s ruling (which upheld Texas’s law), instead endorsing the 11th Circuit’s far superior approach...Had the Court declined to correct the Fifth Circuit’s errors – or had it endorsed them – it would have done great harm to free speech and property rights in the digital world. Having encountered a chute, the NetChoice cases will continue to climb the judicial ladder.” Federal courts will continue to weigh in on these digital First Amendment issues, but not without some much-needed guidance from the Supreme Court that state governments cannot take away platforms’ free speech rights.
 
As the justices get in some rest and relaxation, Court observers are already paying close attention to the cases next up on SCOTUS’ list. Later this year, the Court will review the Fifth Circuit’s holding in Wages & White Lion Invs., LLC v. FDA that the FDA has been “arbitrary and capricious” in rejecting vaping companies’ applications to market and sell their products. Get your popcorn and reading glasses ready because TPA will be submitting an amicus brief in this critical case. SCOTUS summer readings will stretch on far past Labor Day.  
New York Housing Missteps
 
To solve big and complex problems, politicians who lack the stomach to pursue sweeping structural reforms all too often settle on small-potatoes proposals that are too clever by half. Such proposals usually involve complex schemes — often opaque but “supported” by crunchy data — and avoid root causes assiduously. The politicians advocating them benefit from seeming to be engaged actively in solving the problem, and their inevitable failures usually cost less politically than hazarding to enact more daring and apt solutions. This dynamic has cropped up repeatedly in American housing policy, in cities floundering amid high rental prices. The small potato that local policymakers dug up this time is the notion that regulating away short-term rentals (STR) — i.e., services such as Airbnb — will prompt landlords to pivot their units to long-term rentals. This increase in supply will lower prices. Or so the theory goes. Prosecuting a new and innovative market entrant like Airbnb has an ease and a simplicity that pursuing true reform — like a zoning overhaul — lacks. Crushing STRs has, unsurprisingly, failed to solve urban housing crunches. Anti-STR policies have proven to function primarily as inconveniences to would-be travelers and unjust obstacles to property owners earning (often much-needed) income. Such policy has been attempted at scale — at the largest scale. In January 2022, New York City kneecapped short-term rentals, enacting onerous regulations that excised 70% of the city’s Airbnb listings (some 15,000 listings) in the month prior to its enforcement date. To lawmakers’ dismay, these units did not re-enter the market as standard rentable housing. According to Wired, research suggests that post-regulation, many short-term Airbnbs remained Airbnbs, extending their rental to 30 days or longer to remain legally compliant. The city’s efforts did essentially nothing to ease its affordability crisis.
 
The New York City hospitality industry’s … shall we say … hospitality to local politicians suggests that lawmakers harbored concerns for somebody other than the average citizen or property owner. As the New York Times primly put it, “The Hotel Trades Council, a powerful force in local politics and ally of Mayor Eric Adams, has long fought the expansion of the platforms.” Sure enough, the hotels have benefitted. “Hotel occupancy rates in New York have been slightly up year over year, by 4 percent in January and 3.4 percent through February 24,” Wired reported.
 
Other benefits have accrued to non-New Yorkers. Wired in March noted that “Jersey City has seen demand [for STRs] rise 77 percent year over year as of mid-February … while in Weehawken and Hoboken, demand has increased 45 and 32 percent, respectively.” The Big Apple imposed chaos for very little return. In sum, according to the Harvard Business Review, “Airbnb contributed to about 1% of aggregate rent growth.” This in a city whose average monthly rent in 2021 surpassed $1,800. Moreover, Airbnb’s meager price impacts centered not in low-income neighborhoods — where shortages and high prices can do the most harm — but “in touristy, centrally located areas where higher-income residents live.”
 
Politicians’ innate tendency to solve system problems through myopic, scapegoating, donor-driven, politically convenient, property-rights-violative policies likely will never disappear. Prosecuting a new and innovative market entrant like Airbnb has an ease and a simplicity that pursuing true reform — like a zoning overhaul — lacks. But politicians who choose the easy path over the right path deserve accountability after their policies inevitably go wrong.
 
 

BLOGS:     
     
Monday: TPA Applauds Governor Youngkin’s Decision to Decline Virginia’s Enrollment into the Direct File Program
 
Tuesday: Fecal Transplants Deserve “Light-Squeeze” Regulatory Approach
 
Wednesday: Taxpayers Protection Alliance Officially Launches its New Free Trade Center
 
Thursday: Applauding Gage County’s Fiscal Prudence in Broadband Investment
 
Friday: Watchdog Slams Postal Service After $2.5 Billion Net Loss and Summer Reading: the Supreme Court


Media:

August 1, 2024: Florida Daily (Fleming Island, FL) quoted me in their article, “Democrats’ Solution to Florida’s Homeowners Insurance Crisis: More Government.”

August 1, 2024: Inside Sources ran TPA's op-ed, "Alaskan Tribes Accuse Government of Trampling Tribal Sovereignty in Broadband Boondoggle."
 
August 1, 2024: The Washington Examiner (Washington, DC) quoted me in their article, “Biden effort to reinstate Obama-era regulations dealt blow by federal court.”
 
August 2, 2024: Townhall Finance ran TPA’s op-ed, “ Beyond Cigarettes: How Heated Tobacco Products Could Transform U.S. Smoking Rates.”

August 2, 2024: Catalyst ran TPA's op-ed, "Senator Schmitt Is Right to Oppose Overreach in Broadband Funding."

August 3, 2024: The Blaze ran TPA's op-ed, "Lawmakers’ Airbnb war leaves sky-high rent prices untouched."
 
August 3, 2024: Townhall ran TPA’s op-ed, “Beyond Cigarettes: How Heated Tobacco Products Could Transform U.S. Smoking Rates.”

August 5, 2024: WZIM (Cape Giraudeau, Mo.) interviewed me about TPA's new polling on tax policy.
 
August 5, 2024: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) quoted me in their article, “Shrinking city, shrinking council? Baltimore to vote on cutting council members.”
 
August 6, 2024: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me about Baltimore’s $16 million payment to developer for a new city office home..
 
August 6, 2024: The Sunday Gazette-Mail (Charleston, WV) ran TPA’s op-ed, “Johnny Kampis: Broadband boondoggle in Alaska.”
 
August 6, 2024: The Federalist (Washington, DC) ran TPA’s op-ed, “WHO’s New Tobacco Guidelines Prioritize Ideology Over Public Health.”
 
August 8, 2024: WBOB (Jacksonville, FL) interviewed me about tariffs and the deficit.
 
August 8, 2024: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, MD) interviewed me about the Kirwan Commission.

August 9, 2024: Real Clear Markets ran TPA's op-ed, "Biden Regulatory Hammer Targets Video Game Industry."

Have a great weekend!