Wisconsin Supreme Court Strikes Down Race-Based Scholarships As Unconstitutional

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down a state-funded scholarship program that awarded financial aid based on the race of college students. The Democrat-controlled court followed the precedent laid out by the United States Supreme Court in finding that Gov. Tony Evers and the state were violating the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

Two of the most liberal justices, however, wrote a concurrence denouncing the bar on the use of race for such scholarships.

If Democrats are able to pack the Supreme Court as demanded by many party leaders, this concurrence is an example of the likely changes that a packed court will bring in reversing anti-discrimination and other rulings.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty represented the taxpayers in this successful challenge of the Wisconsin Minority Undergraduate Retention Grant Program.

That program administered taxpayer-funded grants of up to $2,500 per academic year to eligible students of Black American, American Indian, Hispanic, or certain Southeast Asian backgrounds.

The state paid out roughly half a million dollars in scholarships, now found to be racially discriminatory.

Citing the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the Court reaffirmed that “The Constitution requires that every person ‘must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race.’”

While many have heralded the new bright line against racial discrimination in higher education, two of the most liberal justices, Chief Justice Jill Karofsky and Susan Crawford, lamented the loss of racially discriminatory programs.

In her concurrence, Chief Justice Karofsky captured the sweeping, open-ended rationales used for such programs:

“Why have we not learned from our past? Why are we not willing to recognize the harms this country has caused to those who are marginalized, disempowered, or disenfranchised? Why, instead of wielding the Equal Protection Clause as a sword against racism, do we employ it to shield against the promise of equality for all? The answer appears to be because we have failed to fully recognize how societal and governmental practices have long continued to enforce a preference for White Americans and to burden Black Americans and those of other disadvantaged races or backgrounds.”

These justices would continue race-based programs indefinitely under the claim that there is a “preference for White Americans” in programs that focus purely on academic achievement or specific non-racial criteria.

The two justices quote from the dissent of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson that requiring race-neutral rules is just more “let-them-eat-cake obliviousness” by a white privileged society.

She added, “I fully recognize and acknowledge that I am bound by the precedent set forth in SFFA and other cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court…However, I also choose to write separately. I do so because I find it impossible to ignore the truths that Justice Jackson identifies.”

Notably, those “truths” from the Jackson dissent have been challenged as containing glaring false claims.

I have previously discussed my disagreements with Jackson and her jurisprudence, including her dissent in the SFFA case. However, this concurrence vividly shows the jurists whom the Democrats could call upon to pack the Supreme Court to reverse decisions like the one in SFFA.

With various Democratic leaders now openly pledging to pack the Court to reverse such decisions, the 2028 election is becoming a referendum on the future of an institution that has proven key to maintaining this Republic for 250 years.

Democratic politicians and pundits have made clear that they need the immediate control of the Supreme Court to carry out an agenda that would be struck down as unconstitutional. That includes reversing core constitutional rulings. The Karofsky concurrence offers a glimpse into our future if we allow the Court to be the object of a political hostile takeover.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/21/2026 - 16:20
https://ift.tt/KnUIEG9
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/KnUIEG9
via IFTTT

Wisconsin Supreme Court Strikes Down Race-Based Scholarships As Unconstitutional

"It's That Bad": Virginia Residents Battling Constant Noise From Data Center Generators

For more than a year, residents living next to the Vantage Data Centers facility have endured what they describe as a constant, high-pitched whining or ringing sound coming from the site's massive backup generators - the facility's only source of electricity.

An aerial view of the Vantage data center in Sterling, Va., which abuts a residential neighborhood. (NewsNation)

Unlike most data centers connected to the power grid, this facility runs entirely on its own on-site power plant. What residents were told would be temporary generator testing has become permanent operation.

"They're Just Never Turned Off"

Neighbor Hari Doue told News Nation that the community was initially assured the generators were only being tested for emergencies.

"We were told in the beginning that they test the generators to make sure they're working in case of an emergency. And then as the year and the months have gone on, they're just never turned off," Doue said. 

Another neighbor, Greg Pirio, has reached out to attorneys over the issue. He described the impact bluntly:

"You just hear this noise, it's just like, you just want to curse, you know, it's that bad."

Some residents have taken drastic steps to cope. One placed a mattress against their window to muffle the sound. Another installed plexiglass and began monitoring decibel levels with a sound meter. Concerns center on sleep disruption, stress, and falling property values.

Vantage Data Centers officials told NewsNation they continue to monitor noise levels and do not believe the sound exceeds Loudoun County's limits - which is 55 decibels in Residential and rural areas and 60 decibels in Mixed-use residential areas. Exceptions include generators operating during emergencies, at utility request, or during testing.

Virginia: America's Data Center Capital

Virginia has the largest concentration of data centers in the United States - 287 operational and 398 prospective, according to Pew Research. Loudoun County has become ground zero for this boom, often called "Data Center Alley."

The economic upside is significant. Data centers generate almost half of Loudoun County's property tax revenues, funding schools and public services while helping keep residential tax rates lower.

However, the facilities consumed approximately 26% of Virginia's total electricity in 2023, contributing to higher energy costs for all residents.

The situation in Sterling reflects a broader national tension. On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued show-cause orders requiring major grid operators to justify or update rules for connecting large energy users such as data centers.

President Trump has encouraged data center developers to build dedicated on-site power sources - the exact model used by Vantage in Sterling - to protect regular utility customers from rate hikes.

Residents near the Vantage site acknowledge the benefits of data centers, including jobs, tax revenue, and essential digital infrastructure, but strongly object to their placement directly next to homes.

"Do everything in your power to try and stop it from being built in an area that has any residential properties within 10 or 15 miles of it," said Doue. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/20/2026 - 19:15
https://ift.tt/wWKDjtz
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/wWKDjtz
via IFTTT

"It's That Bad": Virginia Residents Battling Constant Noise From Data Center Generators

Banning Hospitals' 'Certain Contracts' Could Save Americans $45 Billion, Report Finds

Authored by Travis Gillmore via The Epoch Times,

A ban on certain contracts between hospital systems and health insurers could save Americans around $45 billion, according to a report from White House analysts released on June 18.

Lenox Health Greenwich Village Hospital in Manhattan, New York City, on Nov. 2, 2020. Chung I Ho/The Epoch Times

"The Council of Economic Advisers' findings reinforce that the Trump administration is delivering meaningful cost reductions for American patients," White House spokeswoman Allison Schuster told The Epoch Times by email June 19, noting the president's surgical approach to policy development that prioritizes fiscal discipline.

"By harnessing the use of free-market competition, President Trump has found a real solution to lowering costs instead of blindly throwing more taxpayer money at the problem."

Administration officials are exploring how best to manage hospital systems and insurers without relying on price controls or heavy-handed regulations.

At issue are three clauses, known as "anti-steering, anti-tiering, and all-or-nothing" contracts, which critics say shield healthcare providers from competition, thus increasing prices for consumers.

Anti-steering clauses block insurers from incentivizing or guiding clients toward cheaper options or providers, even when their data indicate clear savings potential.

Anti-tiering is used to stop insurers from categorizing hospital systems in less desirable benefit tiers that would reduce profit margins by forcing the providers to cover higher patient costs.

Bundled, also known as all-or-nothing, contracts require insurers to include all hospitals and physicians in a system, eliminating the option to negotiate independently.

Combined, the provisions result in more expensive healthcare, with higher rates, less efficiency, and limited insurance plan innovation due to reduced competition.

In markets where the clauses in question are widespread, a ban would lead to an 18 percent decline in hospital and physician prices, amounting to approximately $4,100 per inpatient admission, according to the report.

Premium prices would decline by about 7 percent, saving the average family about $1,800 annually, the report found, with aggregate reductions totaling about $45 billion and up to $63 billion.

Workers would benefit from higher take-home pay and lower out-of-pocket costs thanks to the reduced insurance costs. Small businesses and employers would also get relief with lower costs.

Analysts arrived at the numbers by calculating several variables, including the increased leverage insurers would gain while bargaining, with an expectation that prices would drop by about 8 percent as a result.

Allowing steering and tiering will improve patient management and shift care toward lower-cost providers, with transparencies helping reduce prices by about 4 percent, according to the report.

Free-market dynamics are expected to drive dynamic competition, with efficient, low-cost competitors helping further drive down costs by about 3 percent.

Proposed policies prioritize healthcare in rural areas, with bans aimed at lowering premiums while boosting independent rural hospitals.

Crackdowns are underway in the form of federal legal proceedings, with eyes on a national framework to codify the proposals.

"Thanks to the Trump administration's crackdown on anti-steering, anti-tiering, and all-or-nothing contracts by hospitals, everyday Americans are directly benefitting from lower premium contributions and higher take-home wages," Schuster said.

Congressional lawmakers are considering a similar course of action with the Healthy Competition for Better Care Act introduced by Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), which would outlaw the anti-competition clauses.

Some states, including Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Texas, prohibit certain clauses, though coverage and enforcement vary.

The report referenced two recent civil antitrust actions brought by the Department of Justice, one against OhioHealth filed in February and settled June 18, with no admission of wrongdoing and the hospital forbidden from using anticompetitive clauses.

"Providing affordable healthcare to Americans is uncontroversial and this Department of Justice will not tolerate corporate prioritization of revenue in contravention of our antitrust laws," Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said in a statement.

A case against New York-Presbyterian Hospital, filed in March, is pending. Justice Department filings allege the hospital is insulated from price competition by contractual clauses, thus raising healthcare costs for New Yorkers.

A settlement with Sutter Health of Northern California from 2022 offers a successful precedent, according to the report, with the system agreeing to pay $575 million in fines and stop using the contractual clauses and succeeding in the aftermath of the agreement, later receiving recognition for its rural facilities.

Trump has repeatedly placed healthcare at the front of his second-term agenda, seeking to address the root causes of high medical costs, including with the release of TrumpRX.gov for prescription medicine at reduced prices.

He's taken his message on the road around the country in recent weeks, highlighting his actions and plans to further address Americans' healthcare cost burdens.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/20/2026 - 17:30
https://ift.tt/LXsR5az
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/LXsR5az
via IFTTT

Banning Hospitals' 'Certain Contracts' Could Save Americans $45 Billion, Report Finds

Why CME Is Really Suing The CFTC Over Perps

Authored by David Christopher via Bankless.com,

CME wants Kalshi's Bitcoin perp reclassified as a swap, not banned. That distinction reveals what's actually at stake in the CFTC lawsuit.

Yesterday, CME, the country's dominant derivatives exchange, sued the CFTC over its recent approval of regulated crypto perpetual futures.

The exchange argues Kalshi's  Bitcoin perp should be treated as a swap, not a futures contract, a classification shift that would push the product into a more restrictive, institution-facing rulebook. The CFTC called the suit "frivolous" and said it looks forward to dismissing it.

We've known for some time that major exchanges like CME and ICE have grown uneasy about the rise of perpetuals, an unease already visible in their push to have regulators scrutinize  Hyperliquid over manipulation, sanctions evasion, anything they can find.

Why? Because regulators have finally opened a compliant path for Americans to trade an entirely new class of derivatives, one whose financial efficiency threatens the effectively monopolistic business model of these incumbents.

CME is scared of perps. No one should be scared of CME. https://t.co/l0ZHyqcpPk

— Jake Chervinsky (@jchervinsky) June 18, 2026

The Label Is the Business Model

CME's legal argument turns on a label.

If Kalshi's Bitcoin perp is a futures contract, it can trade on a regulated futures exchange, where regular U.S. users can access it. If it is a swap, it falls into a heavier rulebook built largely for institutional derivatives, making it harder to launch, harder to distribute, and functionally out of reach for most retail traders.

That distinction sounds technical, and it echoes the same fight playing out over prediction markets, but the effect here is simple: whether perps will be accessible to retail users, or reserved primarily for institutional actors.

CME's filing comes wrapped in safety language, but, as always, the motivation is financial. Perps threaten the part of CME's business built around expiration.

A normal futures contract expires. To hold the same exposure, a trader has to roll into a new contract before it does. CME collects another round of trading and clearing fees on every roll, and that churn feeds the market data business it sells on top.

A perpetual future doesn't expire. A trader holds the same position open indefinitely and settles periodic funding payments instead of rolling.

No roll means no recurring trade, and that breaks a rhythm CME's business is built on. The market already understands the threat. When regulators opened the door to regulated U.S. perps, shares of CME, Cboe, and ICE fell as investors priced in real competition.

Chair Selig has broadcast we are getting Hyperliquid and it will be before the election.

There will be US compliant front ends to access the giant liquidity pool on Hyperliquid.

The CME is as pissed as Nevada is about losing their monopoly to prediction markets.

Welcome to… https://t.co/IYFmfWZPwL

— Mister Todd (@pondermint) June 18, 2026

Why Perps Keep Gaining Ground

None of this makes perps harmless. They can involve leverage, liquidations, and funding costs that quietly eat into a position over time. CME CEO Terry Duffy is right that many retail traders don't fully understand those risks, and the venues offering perps should do the work to make them clear.

But blocking regulated U.S. perps does not make demand disappear. It pushes Americans back offshore, where they get fewer disclosures, weaker oversight, and less protection when something breaks.

That is why the better answer is to regulate the instrument clearly: leverage limits, margin standards, and liquidation transparency.

Crypto is where this starts because the markets are already mature. That makes Bitcoin perps the easiest place for regulators to begin. But given the demand we've seen with HIP-3, it won't be long before the model stretches to stocks, indices, and ETFs.

That is what makes CME's lawsuit so revealing. The exchange is asking for a reclassification, not a ban. You do not do that to a product you think you can kill. If you can kill it, you kill it. If you can't, you relocate it, cut it off to slow the bleed.

This is the history of crypto. A better technology emerges, users are drawn to its merits, incumbents call it dangerous, and the regulatory fight begins. Those fights have rarely decided whether the old model gets protected. They simply decide how long.

The Perpification has already begun, and all incumbents can hope to do is slow it down.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/20/2026 - 16:20
https://ift.tt/p0QJjRh
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/p0QJjRh
via IFTTT

Why CME Is Really Suing The CFTC Over Perps

STRC Is Junk Credit In A Bitcoin Costume, And Retail Is Holding $8.8 Billion Of It

Authored by Glenn Cameron via BitcoinMagazine.com,

There is now $15 billion sitting in three securities being marketed to bitcoin holders as the safer, smarter way to access bitcoin exposure: Strategy’s preferred stack, STRC, and SATA.

The pitch is identical across all three.

Tax-favored. 11.5% income. Backed by bitcoin. Money-market risk. 82.7% of the buyer base is retail.

Every word of that pitch is wrong, and the security those buyers actually own is built to fail in exactly the bitcoin environment it claims to harness.

The Pitch Is a Story. The Capital Structure Is the Truth

STRC is an unsecured, subordinated, perpetual preferred equity. No maturity date. No lien on a single satoshi of Strategy’s bitcoin treasury. The dividend is discretionary, which means the board can cut it at any monthly meeting with no notice, no remedy, and no vote. S&P rates the issuer B-, four notches into junk territory. None of that information appears in the marketing.

Stack those features against the words in the pitch. “Backed by bitcoin” describes a security with no claim on a single coin. “Money-market-like” describes an instrument rated four notches below investment grade with no maturity and a discretionary coupon. “Safe income” describes a payment the board controls and the funding source for which is the security itself. Each phrase in the marketing is contradicted by the indenture.

That is not a money market fund. It is speculative-grade credit-like product dressed in safe-income marketing, and 82.7% of it sits on retail balance sheets. Of the $10.7 billion notional outstanding for STRC, roughly $8.8 billion belongs to retail bitcoin holders concentrated in a single junk credit. There is no polite phrase for that exposure. It is a bag, and retail is holding it.

The Funding Mechanism Eats Itself

The structural risk in STRC is not that the dividend is high. It is that the dividend cannot be funded out of the business. Strategy’s underlying software business produces roughly $477 million in annual revenue. Total preferred dividend obligations now exceed $1.2 billion, a ratio of 3.5 to 1. The gap is not closed by earnings. It is closed by issuing new STRC shares at or above par, or diluting common shareholders of MSTR, with the proceeds recycled to pay the existing holders.

That is a reflexive funding loop. It works when STRC trades above par and breaks the moment it doesn’t. Anything that pressures the price, a credit downgrade, a missed dividend, a bitcoin drawdown, a capital markets shutdown, removes the very mechanism the dividend depends on. There is no plan B in the indenture. There is no lien on bitcoin to seize. There is no operating cash flow to redirect. There is only the next share issuance, and the next, until either bitcoin compounds the company out of the problem or the structure jams.

Then there is the dividend ratchet. The coupon has moved monthly from 9% to 11.5%, embedding $268 million in permanent annual obligations into the structure. The rate has only ever moved in one direction. Each monthly increase makes the funding gap wider, the share issuance more dilutive, and the price floor harder to hold. The mechanism designed to keep STRC attractive to new buyers is the same mechanism that compounds the burden on the issuer and accelerates the run on the funding loop when stress arrives.

The Mythical Institutional Buyer and the Math That Buries Him

The standard defense of the Digital Credit category goes like this: surely informed institutional capital is on the other side. Insurance companies need yield. Pension funds need duration. Fixed-income desks need product. Digital Credit is the institutional bridge to bitcoin.

That defense collapses on its own logic. Any institution that allocates to an unsecured, subordinated, perpetual preferred layered on a bitcoin treasury must first underwrite the underlying asset. Any institution that does the work to underwrite bitcoin allocates directly to spot bitcoin, where the credit risk vanishes and the path-dependent fragility goes with it. The institutional buyer who is both informed and rational does not exist in this product. The buyer who does exist, at 82.7% concentration, is retail.

The path-dependency math finishes the argument. Across 5,000 simulated bitcoin paths at a 10% compounding rate, the credit model produces a 12.3% probability of formal default, a 21.9% probability of dividend deferral, and a 50.7% probability of at least one forced bitcoin sale by the issuer during the eight-year cycle. At a 15% compounding rate, STRC has a 44.6% probability of ending below $85 even on paths where bitcoin recovers to new highs.

A bitcoin holder’s terminal wealth depends only on where bitcoin ends. An STRC holder’s outcome depends on every drawdown in between, because the same mechanisms that pretend to protect the dividend in calm conditions become the mechanisms that consume the holder’s principal in stress. The product is most fragile in exactly the bitcoin scenarios the underlying asset absorbs without consequence.

Bitcoin Was Built to Kill This Exact Trade

Bitcoin’s entire reason for existing is the removal of counterparty risk, custody risk, and opacity from monetary holdings. STRC, Strategy’s preferred stack, and similar instruments reintroduce all three under a marketing layer the underlying instrument cannot support. The alternative does not require any of that machinery: bitcoin in self-custody alongside a U.S. Treasury income ladder produces the same cash profile, with more terminal wealth and no corporate issuer in between.

The market will eventually clear the difference between the security retail thinks it bought and the security it actually owns. Anyone reading the cap table and allocating anyway is willingly underwriting Saylor’s funding plan with capital that thinks it bought a money market fund.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/19/2026 - 18:30
https://ift.tt/4v1bXid
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/4v1bXid
via IFTTT

STRC Is Junk Credit In A Bitcoin Costume, And Retail Is Holding $8.8 Billion Of It