The Conference Board, a business research group, on Tuesday released the June update for its consumer confidence index.Economyread more
The Congressional Budget Office estimated Tuesday that the national debt will rise to 141% of the economy over the next 30 years — 11 percentage points lower than the agency...Economyread more
Investors are piling into gold, sending the precious metal to a six-year high on Monday, and analysts think the commodity has established a base to go even higher.Marketsread more
More than 150,000 former students of for-profit colleges filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos on Tuesday, claiming the...Personal Financeread more
The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note fell below 2% on Tuesday as investors looked for safety following the release of much weaker-than-expected confidence data.Bondsread more
Amazon announces that Amazon Prime Day will last for two days, starting July 15.Technologyread more
Investors plow into the precious metal amid the prospects for lower interest rates, a softer global economy and increased geopolitical tensions.Marketsread more
Buyers pulled away from the builders in May, even as affordability improved, thanks to lower mortgage rates.Real Estateread more
Allergan shareholders will receive 0.8660 AbbVie shares and $120.30 in cash for each share held, for a total value of $188.24 per Allergan share.Biotech and Pharmaceuticalsread more
CNBC's Carl Quintanilla reports from Hanoi, ahead of the Trump-Xi trade meeting, to look at Vietnam's manufacturing boom and whether it can be sustained.Economyread more
Joe Biden could face some uncomfortable questions about his record on women this week at the first Democratic presidential debates in Miami.2020 Electionsread more
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday erased a ruling from a federal appeals court on the grounds that one of the judges who voted in the case was dead at the time it was handed down.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, was listed as the author of a majority opinion in April 2018 that expanded protections against wage discrimination under the Equal Pay Act.
The problem with the opinion, the Supreme Court said, was that it was issued 11 days after Reinhardt, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, had passed away.
The Supreme Court, in an unsigned opinion with no noted dissents, wrote that the 9th Circuit "effectively allowed a deceased judge to exercise the judicial power of the United States after his death."
"But federal judges are appointed for life, not for eternity," according to the justices, who ordered that the lower courts reconsider the issue.
The 9th Circuit had said that Reinhardt had "fully participated in this case and authored this opinion" in a footnote to the now-vacated opinion.
But that didn't pass muster, according to the justices, who wrote that the opinion was not endorsed by a "majority of the living judges at the time of issuance."
It is "well understood," the court wrote, that judges may change their votes up until the very moment when a decision is released.
The 9th Circuit's opinion would have established a precedent in the nation's largest federal circuit barring the use of an employee's prior salary to justify pay discrimination between men and women.
Reinhardt, before his passing, wrote that "to allow employers to capitalize on the persistence of the wage gap and perpetuate that gap ad infinitum — would be contrary to the text and history of the Equal Pay Act, and would vitiate the very purpose for which the Act stands."
Five living judges on the 11-judge panel approved of Reinhardt's opinion when it was issued.
Another five living judges concurred with Reinhardt's judgment, but for reasons of their own. (Three concurrences were written in addition to the majority opinion.)
That meant that Reinhardt's vote would make his opinion count as the majority opinion, therefore creating binding precedent.
"The upshot is that Judge Reinhardt's vote made a difference," the Supreme Court wrote in its opinion. "Was that lawful?"
The answer, it turns out, is no.