The Supreme Court sided with President Trump over his plan to use the Postal Service to impose broad new restrictions on the distribution of mail ballots.
Over the dissent of the court's three liberal judges, SCOTUS' ruling means that the Trump administration can move forward with a proposal for DHS to compile state-specific lists of people it believes are eligible to vote in the Democratic-led states that had challenged the plan in court.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, wrote that they believed lower courts had the authority to rule in favor of the Democratic states now, while stressing that the high court’s majority had not addressed the legality of Trump’s directives on the merits.
“Today’s decision does not address whether the President’s attempts to interfere with States’ administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful. Nor does it suggest that the Executive Branch has any constitutional or statutory authority to implement the President’s directives,” Sotomayor wrote.
“Instead, today’s decision merely postpones adjudication of those challenges.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, meanwhile, penned her own lengthy dissent using stronger language to bash how the ruling “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections.”
Trump says his rules would combat voter fraud, but opponents say they would create chaos and disenfranchise large numbers of legitimate voters.
Notably, the decision did not address the legality of Trump's order, only the timing of the challenge to it.
"The court's disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the government to implement the order will necessarily be lawful," the court wrote.
"On that score, time will tell. But the order itself does not harm the states, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the government from trying to implement it. And for the reasons discussed, that injunction is likely to irreparably harm the government if it remains in place while the appellate process runs its course."
Nevertheless, it represents a loss for the Democratic states, who warned they will need to immediately begin diverting time and resources away from preparing for this year's elections in November.
“The ruling is a win for Trump for the moment, but it doesn’t fully clear the way for his effort to limit mail-in ballots to go into effect,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
“As soon as tomorrow, a Massachusetts district court may block the underlying USPS rule at issue - which is the real thing to watch heading into November.”
Specifically, as Bloomberg notes, the high court order is likely to set off a new round of legal wrangling before US District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston over final Postal Service regulations set to be published on Wednesday to implement the executive order.
Should it take effect for November, the program could help Republicans keep control of Congress.
...and cue the demand to pack the court (or 'democracy-threatening' conservative judges).
Tyler Durden Mon, 08/24/2026 - 17:40Not long after we reported that Goldman's commodity strategists are turning especially bullish on gold, telling clients they see "significant upside risk to our $4,900/oz end-2026 gold forecast" as a result of a substantial jump in call buying, not to mention gold crossing above its 200DMA for the first time since October 2023, Goldman's futures desk also chimed in with trader Robert Quinn writing that over the past 3 weeks, speculators purchased a record amount of Gold futures in nominal terms per Commitment of Traders (COT) (full note available to pro subs).
Managed Money, Other, and Non-Reportable bought +$22.2bn from July 28th - August 18th, representing a 10+ year notional max. Long augmentation (+$13.6bn) and short covering (+$8.6bn) contributed to the sharp move higher. Resultant net length registered at 93% on a 2 year lookback.
As Goldman shows in the chart below, all categories participated in the recent meltup (which we pointed out as it was happening some two weeks ago here): Managed Money +$10.9bn, Other +$8.5bn, Non-Reportable +$2.8bn.
At first glance, Quinn notes, macroeconomic factors, which also steepened the US yield curve, seemingly catalyzed the broad support. Investors lowered the potential for multiple rate hikes in 2026 post the incrementally dovish July Fed meeting plus benign inflation and job readings. Meanwhile, long-dated rates charged higher due to cyclical resilience, AI capex, growth optimism, ongoing fiscal pressures, and global spillovers. Thus for Managed Money and Other, gross long changes on either a 1 or 2 week basis became positively correlated with US 2s30s.
That said, the Goldman trader cautions that gold bulls kept adding as recent Treasury actions forced a curve retracement. Over August 18th - 21st, Gold jumped +5.9% and US 2s30s fell -8bps after the Treasury announced increases of 10-to-30y buyback operations.
Gold aggregate open interest rose each session for a cumulative +$8.9bn.
Meanwhile, GS futures strategists' CTA model also showed a surge in buying, which was to be expected since on August 5 we said that "CTAs remain short gold. If the breakout gains traction, systematic buying could add meaningful upside convexity to the move."
Moreover, Gold 3 month implied volatility richened and normalized 25 delta put-call skew cheapened to a 5 month low. Therefore longs initiated via outright futures and calls.
UBS' trading desk also chimed in today, with S&T specialist Jonathan Garber writing in a Monday morning note (available here to pro subs), that "the outlook for gold has become increasingly constructive, supported by strong futures positioning, continued ETF inflows, US fiscal and debt concerns, dollar weakness, persistent inflation risks, and reduced expectations for near-term policy easing."
Echoing Goldman, he notes that investor sentiment has shifted meaningfully over the past two weeks, with growing interest from hedge funds and other clients seeking to increase exposure following the latest rally. He notes that "while many investors were largely disengaged only a few weeks ago, the recent price action appears to have captured broader market attention."
To be sure, this rapid shift may be a red flag: going back to the Goldman's Quinn, he writes that this sharp spike in bullish sentiment creates some risk of tactical unwinds should Chairman Warsh also express discomfort with recent market developments.
Recall that at the July Fed meeting, Warsh had not yet decided whether his keynote speech at Jackson Hole would be "big-picture" or a more traditional preview for policy into year-end. Some Fed pundits, including former officials, believe he (and Bessent) must restore inflation fighting credibility.
Countering Goldman's caution, UBS is more sanguine writing that despite the bullish backdrop, investor participation has not fully matched the strength of the rally. They go on to note that Gold's advance has been driven "primarily through futures markets rather than OTC channels, with Exchange-for-Physical (EFP) premiums remaining elevated and futures positioning accounting for much of the market's strength. This divergence helps explain why prices have moved sharply higher while client engagement and OTC flows remain relatively uneven."
Echoing what we said two weeks ago, UBS believes that ETF demand remains one of the strongest supportive factors for the market. Buying has remained consistent throughout the rally, with substantial additional gold accumulated through ETF vehicles. Unlike some other areas of the market, ETF inflows are aligned with the price action, reinforcing the view that the move is being supported by genuine investment demand rather than solely speculative futures activity.
Meanwhile, lending and financing markets have also shown signs of improvement. In Asia, Singapore traded at a premium to OTC markets, Asian clients borrowed loco London gold, and borrowing demand increased across a broad range of maturities, extending from one month to as far as eighteen months.
UBS explains that these developments are notable given the pressure on lending yields over recent months and suggest that demand for financing is beginning to return.
Curve dynamics have also shifted across both gold and silver. Front-end rates have softened while longer-dated maturities have strengthened, a pattern visible across multiple metals. Although the underlying drivers remain uncertain, producer-related activity may be contributing to stronger demand further out the curve.
Here, UBS agrees with Goldman that options markets have also become more supportive of the bullish narrative: skew has shifted in favor of calls, making upside exposure more expensive relative to puts and signaling stronger demand for bullish positioning. In addition, realized volatility has recently exceeded implied volatility, creating potential opportunities for volatility buyers and highlighting the speed at which headline-driven moves can develop in spot markets.
Echoing Goldman, UBS also suggests to pause and asses after the recent sharp move, writing that while the medium- and long-term outlook remains positive, expectations are for consolidation around current levels and the development of a higher trading range rather than an immediate, uninterrupted move higher. Further gains are expected to occur gradually as broader investor participation continues to build alongside improving market fundamentals.
More views from the UBS trading desk
The trading desk remains constructive on gold and continues to view it as the best expression of USD weakness. Since the Treasury's decision to increase long-end buybacks, investors have reduced USD longs and established fresh USD shorts. Part of the market's reasoning is that the move reflects an attempt to influence long-end pricing and curve dynamics, which has raised concerns around confidence in the dollar and reinforced demand for hard assets such as gold and other metals (and sparked speculation that both YCC and QE may be looming).
Importantly, the challenge of rising rates and steeper curves is becoming a global issue rather than one isolated to the US. Against this backdrop, gold remains an attractive hedge against both fiscal concerns and a weakening USD. Since the Treasury announcement, the UBS desk has seen better buyers emerge and expect gold to continue pushing higher.
From a positioning perspective, support appears to be forming. Gold ETF holdings have rebounded toward May 2026 highs, while China increased its gold reserves at the fastest monthly pace since 2023, highlighting continued official-sector demand. The combination of improving ETF flows and strong central bank buying provides a constructive backdrop for further gains.
The biggest near-term catalyst will be Jackson Hole, where Chairman Warsh will take center stage for his first appearance. Any guidance on rates, inflation, and the broader policy outlook will be closely watched given the implications for the dollar, real yields, and ultimately gold.
XAUUSD
XAUUSD electronically traded cash volumes increased notably week over week, with Gold firmly holding a top 10-volume ranking overall.
The highest concentration of electronic activity took place on Wednesday, Aug. 19 - just after the Treasury's buyback announcement - with 27% of the weekly turnover. XAUUSD was bid through $4500 for the first time since June
All client segments (Asset Managers, Banks, Hedge Funds and Retail) all saw their activity peak on Aug. 19. Hedge funds specifically executed 30%+ of their weekly turnover on this day.
Avg XAUUSD Top of Book Spreads (17 Aug - 22 August % of Mid, 00:00-20:30GMT) were ~4% tighterthan Aug MTD levels and 10% tighter than observed in July. With that said, last week's pricing sat slightlywider than June's averages.
Finally, prediction markets are also jumping in the fray, with the recent spike in prices moving odds that gold will hit $5000 by year end sharply higher, from 40% a week ago to well over 60% today.
More in the full Goldman and UBS notes, both available to pro subs.
Tyler Durden Mon, 08/24/2026 - 17:20Authored by Kenin M. Spivak via RealClearPolitics,
Although the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and civil rights laws dating back to 1866 prohibit nearly all racial preferences, most Americans oppose these preferences, and Donald Trump was elected vowing to eliminate DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) - progressives won't give up.
Their race-obsessed thinking reduces America to intersectional classifications of oppressed and oppressor. This addled concept is a self-defeating dialectic in which no amount of progress on race relations is ever enough - or even acknowledged. Despite enormous advances, with the possible exception of Palestinians and transgender people, no group is seen as more oppressed and deserving of preferences than African Americans.
In 2025, President Trump issued executive orders that revoked President Biden's whole-of-government mandates interweaving DEI into all facets of the federal government. Since then, the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department under Harmeet Dhillon has filed numerous administrative actions and lawsuits to end racial preferences that disadvantage whites, and some universities, corporations, and charities have limited their DEI programs. Conversely, many universities have defied the Supreme Court's 2023 holding in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard by renaming or reformulating their DEI programs. Some are using a loophole in the SFFA decision that acknowledged colleges may consider how an applicant's race affected his life.
In just the last three months, the Justice Department announced at least 25 investigations, lawsuits, and settlements involving allegedly unlawful racial preferences by the College of William & Mary, Duke University, a Jersey City college prep course, City University of New York (CUNY), the state of Minnesota, the city of Evanston, Illinois, Arizona State University, UC Davis Medical School, UC San Diego Medical School, and 15 other medical schools.
A State Department internal review announced last week found that the Biden administration required foreign service officers to read materials on critical race theory, slavery reparations, anti-racism, and so-called "white fragility." To be eligible for promotion, they had to discuss DEI with foreign counterparts to demonstrate "allyship." They were trained on how to talk about "Black Lives Matter" and "systemic racism" in foreign languages, and to use progressive-approved terminology. The State Department claims that it has finally "put an end" to these practices.
Then, last month, a federal judge in California ruled that the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice and Interior exceeded their authority by imposing conditions ending DEI in grants to California cities. Defending Education, an education watchdog, found that America's two leading teachers' unions, the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers are embedding DEI principles into policies for classroom use of AI. Numerous companies, such as Apple, Microsoft, Costco, Delta, and Cisco, openly continue their DEI programs, and the pace of litigation shows that many other companies and institutions covertly do so.
In 1996, California stunned the nation when 55% of voters approved Proposition 209, which amended the state's constitution to prohibit public institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity in employment, contracting, and education. In 2020, Democrats unsuccessfully sought to repeal Prop 209. California next tried to require public companies to include blacks and other "underrepresented" minorities on their boards. The California courts struck that down. Now, California is moving toward authorizing reparations for its black residents.
A decade after ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court declared that the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is that "the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States." Progressives don't care.
On Real America's "Get Real," RealClear publisher David DesRosiers seeks common ground across the political spectrum. One progressive panelist recently explained that blacks require preferences because it's not "what you know" but "who you know." Whites know all the right people, but blacks do not. What a dated perspective. How patronizing of blacks. How wrong.
More than half of all blacks in major metropolitan areas live in the suburbs, and their children are educated in suburban schools. About 12% of the students in Ivy League colleges are black, even after SFFA. There are 61 black members in the House (14%), five black senators (5%), two Supreme Court justices (22%), and about 184 black federal judges (8%). Blacks comprise about 10% of first year medical school students, 8% of law school students, 2% of Fortune 500 corporate CEOs, and 13% of all Americans.
I am confident that most of these people know someone who can help them and their families, as do black professional athletes, artists, and actors, as well as more than 1,000 African-American mayors, 1,000 state legislators, 14 billionaires and about 1.4 million black millionaires.
While listening to the panelist, I thought about the middle-class neighborhood in Brooklyn where I grew up. My neighbors were policemen, firemen, teachers, and plumbers. Good people. Not one of them was in a position to help me in my career, or introduce me to someone who did. I made my way with hard work and some luck, but never with help from anyone I knew growing up. Of course, I received support from people I met along the way at Columbia University and during my career, as did my black colleagues. It's called "networking," not racism.
Yes, affluent people know more of the "right people" than poor people, and have other advantages as well. Children from poor and low-income families typically face many obstacles due to their socioeconomic status. They often attend inferior K-12 schools, and have less time for homework because of jobs or chores. They are less likely to benefit from two actively involved parents and receive, on average, less guidance and assistance.
Students from families in the bottom 25% income bracket comprise only 3% of enrollment in our most competitive colleges, while those from the top 25% comprise 72%. Studies show that high-achieving, low-income children who have lower GPAs and SAT scores than affluent children achieve college grades and graduation rates at the same level as affluent students. Their scores can be "normed" for these differences, even without special programs.
Blacks are more likely to be poor than whites, and consequently, would disproportionately benefit from this approach. That's fine with me - and, more importantly, with the Constitution. Racial preferences are unconstitutional, illegal and immoral; helping low-income Americans is not.
I defy any children of Michelle Obama, Eric Holder, Jeh Johnson, Beyonce, or Ibram X. Kendi to deny that they have every advantage, including a terrific education and a network of contacts that millions of white Americans lack.
More than once, the U.S. Supreme Court has observed that "distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people. As Chief Justice John Roberts declared, "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
When the Constitution, federal laws and opinion align, progressives should respect our values. Here, that would mean restoring equality and the dignity of blacks by ending the disgrace of DEI.
Kenin M. Spivak is founder and chairman of SMI Group LLC, an international consulting firm and investment bank. He is the author of fiction and non-fiction books and a frequent speaker and contributor to media, including RealClearPolitics, The American Mind, National Review, television, radio, and podcasts.
Tyler Durden Mon, 08/24/2026 - 17:00