Authored by Jonathan Turley via JonathanTurley.org,
There is an interesting controversy brewing in California after four California university professors threatened a political candidate, Richard Lucas, for criticizing them for their roles in the "Billionaire Tax" and sent him a "cease and desist" letter.
David Gamage from the University of Missouri, Brian Galle and Emmanuel Saez from UC Berkeley, and Darien Shanske from UC Davis claimed that the public criticism violated anti-doxxing laws by sharing contact information. They are clearly wrong. One of the aggrieved professors, Brian Galle, teaches at Berkeley Law School called Lucas "a clown," but insisted that sharing public information is unlawful.
Attorney Catha Worthman sent the letter, but has reportedly refused to respond to inquiries after attorneys for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) pushed back on her legal claims and those of her clients.
I have long been a critic of such wealth taxes, specifically California's Billionaire Tax, as economically moronic and legally questionable. The proposal has already cost the state trillions in lost wealth as wealthy taxpayers have fled, taking their businesses and jobs with them.
As I discuss in Rage and the Republic, these wealth taxes have a terrible track record and, on the federal level, face serious constitutional challenges. In California, the drafters included a retroactive clause that can also be challenged.
One of the four professors - who Lucas referred to as "the looter dream team" - destroyed the claims of many supporters that this is just a one-time tax. Some of us have written that this is simply the first salvo. Once they succeed in targeting billionaires, the same measure will likely be used for those in lower tax brackets.
In a recent debate, Berkeley professor Emmanuel Saez admitted that he could not seriously claim this would be a one-time tax, as many in the public have asserted. He said they would have to wait to see if it passes, but it is likely to be repeated, and noted that there may also be a federal wealth tax on the way.
He said:
"I don't think it's going to be a one-time tax...because you can't surprise billionaires more than once.
Even then, you know, maybe some of them were expecting something like this.
So it's going to be a debate about this time, you know, a permanent wealth tax at a low rate that's going to last for a number of years."
Saez has publicly taunted the wealthy who are fleeing the state:
He noted the move on the left to create a federal wealth tax which has been pushed by Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna.
The legislation, "Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act," echoes the growing "eat-the-rich" mantra on the left - seeking to replicate a disastrous push in California that has led to an exodus from that state and an estimated loss of $2 trillion in taxable assets.
It is also flagrantly unconstitutional.
Under the plan, Congress would target 938 billionaires to tap them for $4.4 trillion. That money would then be redistributed as a $3,000 direct payment to every man, woman, and child in a household making $150,000 or less - $12,000 for a family of four.
Now back to the legal threat. I believe that the threatened legal action is wildly off base. Putting aside the fact that this is protected speech, the two anti-doxing statutes, Penal Code §653.2(a) and Civil Code §1708.89, contain clear scienter or intent requirements.
They must show that Lucas demonstrated an "intent to place another person in reasonable fear for their safety, or the safety of the other person's immediate family." Penal Code §653.2(a); Civil Code §1708.89. There is no evidence of such intent. If simply posting such identifying information is a violation, a significant range of protected speech would be proscribed.
There are ample reasons to criticize this tax and the claims made by its champions. There is a type of self-sustaining pattern on the left in support of such measures. Universities have largely purged conservatives and libertarians from departments, leaving most faculties with professors who run exclusively from the left to the far left.
These professors then added intellectual support for radical proposals like wealth taxes. The media then reports that experts have reviewed and approved the measures. It becomes an entirely closed loop from political groups to academics to media creating a uniform narrative.
The ADF wrote a strong letter pointing out the flaws in the claims of these professors under anti-doxxing laws from the lack of intent to the protection of free speech. These professors became public advocates for this ill-conceived plan and, as a result, have drawn criticism for that advocacy.
Lucas was one of those critics:
First they say the billionaire tax is one time. Now the main architect is already talking about making it permanent.
— Richard Lucas (@dickclucas) May 10, 2026Nevertheless, the professors sent two cease and desist letters to Lucas, requesting that he remove their names and contact information from his website "California Wealth Exodus." Lucas has remained adamant that he will not remove their contact information.
The site for figures like Galle link to his academic page, as I have done above. We routinely link to such sites for people to look at the background of figures discussed in columns. In the case of Lucas, it is also meant to allow citizens to express their views to those pushing this proposal.
In my view, the threat of legal action is fundamentally flawed and would not prevail in the courts. These professors will need to respond to their critics rather than work to silence them.
Tyler Durden Tue, 06/09/2026 - 12:20"Turns out, we weren't bullish enough on copper," Jefferies analyst Christopher LaFemina wrote in a note to clients, marking a notable shift from one of Wall Street's most seasoned metal voices. LaFemina joined Jefferies in 2011 after more than a decade covering metals and mining at Lehman Brothers and Barclays, lending weight to his view that the explosive growth in AI data center buildouts, power grid and infrastructure upgrades (a theme he calls "powering up America"), and tight supply are creating structurally higher prices for copper.
LaFemina raised his 2030 target and now expects copper to average $8 per pound, or $17,636 a ton. COMEX copper last traded around $6.34 a pound, while LME copper was near $13,583 a ton.
On a longer timeframe, the LME copper chart suggests the $10,000 level was the breakout zone, further supporting LaFemina's 2030 target given the current supply-tightening backdrop.
"Turns out, we weren't bullish enough on copper," LaFemina said, adding, "We now have the highest copper price forecast on the Street as we see strong US industrial demand and still tight supply."
He noted that the data center and power infrastructure buildout should drive a meaningful acceleration in metals demand, with copper and aluminum prices able to rise much higher before weighing on the broader economy.
Goldman recently estimated that AI capital expenditures by hyperscalers will soar to $800 billion this year. The report can be found here.
In recent weeks, Goldman raised its year-end copper price target, and HSBC warned (report found here) that commodities face a "super-squeeze."
HSBC analysts told clients last week that "metal prices are generally in an upswing, driven by supply disruptions for some commodities due to the Middle East conflict and strong structural demand."
Separately, Goldman analysts led by Aurelia Waltham explained that one of the core issues with the copper market right now is supply:
At the same time, Waltham said stronger-than-expected U.S. copper imports in the first half of 2026 are tightening the ex-U.S. market:
The combination of soft mine supply, U.S. stockpiling, tariff uncertainty, and long-term demand tied to AI buildout and grid-upgrade themes prompted Waltham to upgrade her end-of-year 2026 and 2027 copper price forecasts:
She outlined three price scenarios for copper:
1. Strait of Hormuz Remains Closed for Longer: While we would expect limited impact on the global copper balance as the demand hit from lower economic growth is largely offset by lower copper supply due to sulfur shortages, a substantial pullback in global risk appetite could push the LME price down to its fundamental support level at ~$12,600 in H2 2026, before resuming an upward trend.
2. US Copper Tariff Announced for January 2027: If a US copper tariff is announced prospectively in June 2026, to start in January 2027, we would expect US copper imports to accelerate in H2 2026 (vs. our base case of a slowdown in imports), tightening the ex-US balance and raising prices to over $14,000 in H2 2026. However, we would expect prices to retreat in 2027 as imports stop once the tariff is imposed.
3. Announcement of No Copper Tariff: A definitive decision against the tariff would reduce the size of our ex-US deficit forecast in 2026 and push the ex-US market back into surplus in 2027 as imports fall to a negligible level. In this scenario, we would expect the price to fall to an average of $12,800/t in 2027.
View scenarios here:
Beyond Jefferies, HSBC, and Goldman, JPMorgan analysts have also told clients that the copper upcycle is being driven by a tightening supply backdrop, accelerating power-grid investment, AI data center demand, and broader industrial electrification. Taken together, some of Wall Street's top metals desks are increasingly converging on the view that copper is entering a structurally tighter supply regime that will support a sustained break above $14,000 a ton on the LME.
Tyler Durden Tue, 06/09/2026 - 12:00The southern Lebanese city of Tyre is being pounded by Israeli airstrikes on Tuesday, despite President Trump's insistence that Lebanon not come under attack. Israel's military had hours prior issued an evacuation order for all civilians in the area, amid the unraveling and failing ceasefire.
Casualties are already high, coming at a tense moment after starting on Sunday Iran sent ballistic missiles against Israel over its renewed airstrikes on the southern suburbs of Beirut, where it says Hezbollah command centers are located.
The NY Times reports of the growing death toll Tuesday, "At least eight people were killed in the bombardment, and dozens more were wounded, Lebanon’s health ministry said. The Israeli military also targeted towns and villages across southern Lebanon, including areas that were not covered by evacuation warnings, according to the country’s state-run news agency."
Attack on Tyre, via AFPSo clearly the air raids are expanding, per the report, even after the latest Trump warnings directed at Netanyahu to not do anything that would sabotage a broader Iran peace agreement.
President Trump is still maintaining that Washington and Tehran are in the "final throes" of cementing a deal, and is even suggesting (once again) that an agreement will be done in days:
Asked whether it would be matter of days or weeks, he said it would take “two or three days”.
Tehran has repeatedly stated any deal should include Lebanon—where Israel has been pressing its war with Iran-backed Hezbollah—and fired missiles at Israel on Sunday. That prompted Israeli retaliation, despite US pressure for restraint.
Iran fired another salvo before announcing it was ceasing military action, and hours later Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the “fire on that front is contained”.
Of course, we've been hearing that the war is merely 'days' away from ending from basically the start of the war. And yet, all too predictably, the two sides keep going up the escalation ladder in an escalation trap.
But the White House is saying that it will forge a deal which is good for the American people, whether Israel likes it or not. "Israel may like that, they may not like that — but this is in the best interest of the United States," Vice President JD Vance spelled out to Fox this week.
Escalation: Houthis in Yemen unleash ballistic missile on southern Israel, as Hezbollah sends drones on north...
⚡️Interception in Eilat pic.twitter.com/uUsV3O70VE
— War Monitor (@WarMonitors) June 8, 2026But in the meantime Lebanon continues to suffer, also as Hezbollah and most recently the Houthis out of Yemen fire projectiles on Israel. According to some of the latest via Al Jazeera:
For the residents in Tyre, anybody who is staying behind is in a lot of danger. In the past hour, we’ve seen another Israeli air strike near a Palestinian refugee camp.
The strike happened at a roundabout leading into the camp, a very busy location. There’s also a bus station right at the entrance to the el-Buss refugee camp. Initial reports are coming in of a lot of injuries in that attack.
Israel continues to carry out artillery fire on the city, and there are drones flying over Tyre. For anyone trying to get out of the city, the road is quite dangerous. There have been a series of air strikes north of Tyre along the same road people would use to exit.
So the Lebanon conflict is escalating, not growing more stable, which doesn't bode well for achieving a final Iran deal. Tehran has insisted all along that a deal incorporate the Israel-Lebanon situation.
Reporter: Did you ask Netanyahu not to hit back?
Trump: No. I said do what's right but I want you to stop as quickly as you can. Because they have to stop. It has to do with Lebanon. And it has to stop. We want to get it finished. pic.twitter.com/lnnstEPFA2
Vance had also said in his latest comments to Fox that "I think where the president has been very clear here is that while Israel obviously has some objectives that it has, the United States' main objective in Iran is to ensure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon."
It seems Washington is willing to tolerate some Israeli 'counter-terror' action, but only up to a point. Probably the limits will be reached in more renewed bombings of Beirut itself. Tehran has been seeking to impose some red liens on IDF action in Lebanon, and the White House has so far appeared to respond with compromising language.
Tyler Durden Tue, 06/09/2026 - 11:55