Chambers testify about their concerns. From february until april of 2020. But the closure rates for minority owned businesses are significantly higher with 41 of blackowned businesses, 32 of latino acts owned businesses and 22 of asian businesses. They closed over the same time frame. Now, in april of this year the federal return bank of new york reported that minority and women owned businesses are significantly more likely to show signs of limited Financial Health and are twice as likely to be classified as at risk for distress then nonminorities Small Businesses. Further, companies are three times likely as healthy businesses to close because of [inaudible]. The pcp program established under the cares act and administered by the Small Business administration and treasury as funding lifeline for distressed businesses responding to the culminating pandemic. What recent analysis by the color of change and the u no space United States found only one in ten African American and late lati
On. The s p 500 is still down. 9 . The nasdaq has crawled back to unchanged. The Dow Jones Industrial average, the worst performing index today, 1. 4 down. Click to move in treasuries. 63 basis points on the 10 year. A risk off move today for whatever reason. Of the headlines today is wells fargo, planning to cut thousands of jobs this year. The move may set a precedent for the Banking Industry that has been resisting layoffs. Joining us now is hanna. How many layoffs do we see from the likes of wells fargo every year . Hanna thank you for having me. Wells fargos headcount has stayed steady over the past decade, even as peers have trimmed down. Around america was 300,000 people in 2010, now around 200,000. Wells fargo is steady at about 260,000. People are expensive. Wells fargos expenses has been an issue for a long time. Vonnie primarily where well those cuts come from . Hannah there have not been any plans finalized yet, but the cuts will be broadbased. They are looking at cuts that
Daca and the expansion of daca were likely unlawful. In the face of those decisions, the department of Homeland Security reasonably determined that it no longer wished to do wish to retain the policy, based on its belief the policy was illegal, and its general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies. The decision did not violate the apa for two reasons. First, it is not subject to judicial review. The decision is committed to the unreviewable discretion unless a statute restricts it, and nothing requires the department, a Law Enforcement agency, to not enforce the law. Second, the decision to end this nonenforcement policy was eminently reasonable. Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded at any time, and the departments reasonable concerns about its legality in general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies provided more than a reasonable basis for ending it. After all, an agency is not required to push its legally dubious power to not enforce the l
Based on its belief the policy was illegal, and its general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies. The decision did not violate the apa for two reasons. First, it is not subject to judicial review. The decision is committed to the unreviewable discretion unless a statute restricts it, and nothing requires the department, a Law Enforcement agency, to not enforce the law. Second, the decision to end this nonenforcement policy was eminently reasonable. Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded at any time, and the departments reasonable concerns about its legality in general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies provided more than a reasonable basis for ending it. After all, an agency is not required to push its legally dubious power to not enforce the law to its logical extreme since it undermines confidence in the rule of law itself and conflicts with the agencys Law Enforcement mission. I would like to begin with the review ability question. If the
Argument, which took place in november. Argument first this morning in case 18 587, the department of Homeland Security the university of california and the related cases. General francisco. Mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court, in 20, the dr. Ircuit held that daca and the expansion of daca were likely unlawful. In the face of those decisions, the department of Homeland Security reasonably determined that it no longer wished to do wish to retain the policy, based on its belief the policy was illegal, and its general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies. The decision did not violate the apa for two reasons. First, it is not subject to judicial review. The decision is committed to the unreviewable discretion unless a statute restricts it, and nothing requires the department, a Law Enforcement agency, to not enforce the law. Second, the decision to end this nonenforcement policy was eminently reasonable. Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded