Authored by Amy Howe via scotusblog.com,
The Supreme Court on Monday night granted a request to immediately finalize its opinion in Louisiana v. Callais, in which it struck down that state’s congressional map, to allow Louisiana to draw a new map in time for the 2026 elections.
[ZH: Democrats are raging as] that map is expected to favor Republicans, who currently hold four of the state’s six seats in the U.S. House of Representatives but could pick up one or even two more under a revised map.
The United States Supreme Court, in the eyes of America and the world. pic.twitter.com/xerjBPgDz4
— Bill Madden (@maddenifico) May 1, 2026The court’s decision drew sharp criticism from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the lone dissenter. Jackson argued that the court’s ruling “has spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana.”
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, wrote a concurring opinion that responded to Jackson with equally sharp words, countering that her rhetoric “lacks restraint.”
🚨 JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO HAS HAD IT WITH KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
Joined by Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Alito EVISCERATED Jackson for her combative and "insulting" dissent:
"Instead the dissent offers 2 reasons for its proposed course of action. One is TRIVIAL at best, and… pic.twitter.com/u4idr8ALPT
In an unsigned, one-paragraph order, the court explained that, to give the losing party time to ask the justices to reconsider their decision, the Supreme Court’s clerk normally waits 32 days after a decision is issued before sending a copy of the opinion and the judgment to the lower court.
But, the court wrote, in this case the Black voters defending the map at the center of the dispute “have not expressed any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment.”
The court issued its decision in Louisiana v. Callais on Wednesday, April 29. By a vote of 6-3, it invalidated a map adopted by the Louisiana Legislature in 2024, which created two majority-Black districts after two lower courts ruled that an earlier map with just one majority-Black district likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bars racial discrimination in voting.
Later that day, the “non-African-American” voters who had challenged the 2024 map came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to bypass its normal 32-day waiting period and finalize the opinion as soon as possible. The voters told the justices that the Louisiana Legislature was “considering pushing back” the deadlines for the state’s congressional primaries to allow them “to occur under a remedial map.” Finalizing the opinion immediately, they argued, could give the state more breathing room in which to operate, given the short timeframe in which the state would need to revise the map.
One day later, Louisiana told the court that it would indeed postpone the state’s primary elections for Congress, which had been scheduled for May 16. In the view of Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, the use of the 2024 map would constitute the kind of emergency that justifies a postponement under Louisiana law, because “electing members to Congress under an unconstitutional map flies in the face of the United States Constitution and subjects Louisiana voters to representatives that are impermissibly elected as determined by the United States Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision.”
In her four-page dissent, Jackson suggested that the court itself was taking sides in the battle over redistricting. She wrote that developments in the wake of last week’s ruling in Callais “have a strong political undercurrent.” Louisiana’s effort to redistrict, she said, “unfolds in the midst of an ongoing statewide election, against the backdrop of a pitched redistricting battle among state governments that appear to be acting as proxies for their favored political parties.”
Moreover, Jackson noted, in the last 25 years, when one litigant has objected to a request to fast-track the issuance of its final opinion, the court has only granted the request twice. “To avoid the appearance of partiality,” she emphasized, “we could … opt to stay on the sidelines and take no position by applying our default procedures.” But by granting the challengers’ request, she said, the court’s action “is tantamount to an approval of Louisiana’s rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map.”
In a five-paragraph concurring opinion, Alito called Jackson’s suggestion that the court should allow the 32-day waiting period to expire “to ‘avoid the appearance of partiality’” “baseless and insulting.” Complying with the waiting period, Alito posited, could itself be construed as partisan, because it would favor the defenders of the 2024 map. Alito also pushed back against Jackson’s contention “that our decision represents an unprincipled use of power,” calling it a “groundless and utterly irresponsible charge.”
The Louisiana Legislature plans to hear public comments on Friday on a new proposed map, which would include one majority-Black district. Meanwhile, lawsuits have been filed in both federal and state courts in Louisiana, challenging Landry’s postponement of the May 16 primary.
Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 11:30Ferrari shares fell as much as 3% in Milan after first-quarter results showed stronger-than-expected profit and cash flow, but the beat was overshadowed by a plunge in deliveries in the Middle East, as the U.S.-Iran conflict disrupted shipments to one of the luxury automaker's key markets.
Ferrari's first-quarter results were broadly ahead of expectations on profit, revenue, and cash flow, but deliveries across EMEA, which includes Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, were the clear outlier.
Regional shipments fell to 1,458 units, down 14% year over year and well below the Bloomberg consensus estimate of 1,651, underscoring a wartime-disrupted supercar market.
Here's a snapshot of the first quarter (courtesy of Bloomberg):
Ebitda EU722 million, +4.2% y/y, estimate EU710 million (Bloomberg Consensus)
Ebit EU548 million, +1.1% y/y, estimate EU541.5 million Ebit margin 29.7% vs. 30.3% y/y, estimate 29.7%
Net income EU413 million, +0.2% y/y, estimate EU405.7 million
Industrial free cash flow EU653 million, estimate EU516.1 million
Diluted EPS EU2.33 vs. EU2.30 y/y, estimate EU2.30
Revenue EU1.85 billion, +3.2% y/y, estimate EU1.82 billion
Cars and spare parts revenue EU1.56 billion, +1.3% y/y, estimate EU1.54 billion
Sponsorship, commercial and brand revenue EU218 million, +14% y/y, estimate EU203.9 million
Other revenue EU74 million, +16% y/y, estimate EU70.6 million
Deliveries 3,436, -4.4% y/y, estimate 3,520
EMEA deliveries 1,458 units, -14% y/y, estimate 1,651 (2 estimates)
Americas Deliveries 1,030 units, +0.8% y/y, estimate 1,043 (2 estimates)
Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan 255 units, +7.6% y/y, estimate 253.18 (2 estimates)
Rest of APAC deliveries 693 units, +9.5% y/y, estimate 630.23 (2 estimates)
Ferrari confirmed its 2026 guidance, citing strong order-book visibility toward the end of next year.
Goldman analyst Christian Frenes commented on the guidance, noting:
2026 guidance confirmed with room for upgrades: Ferrari confirmed its guidance for FY26 revenues of ~€7.5bn (cons €7.57bn, GSe €7.89bn), adj. EBIT of >=€2.22bn (€2.25bn, GSe €2.32bn) and ind. FCF >€1.5bn (cons €1.56bn, GSe €1.61mn). We continue to expect Ferrari to upgrade its conservative 2026 guidance in 2Q/3Q26 as we expect mix to continue to accelerate towards 2H26 supported by the ramp-up of the F80 supercar and the 296 Versione Speciale. On current guidance, the FY26-30 CAGR to FY30 targets is in line with CMD guidance of 5% on revenue as well as the EPS level, with any upgrades implying management's willingness to grow above the medium-term growth floor.
Other analyst commentary (courtsey of Bloomberg):
Jefferies (buy)
Analysts led by James Grzinic say group has managed to limit margin unwind despite major FX headwinds and a quarterly trough in shipments
Say there "should be no surprise from today's reiteration of 2026 guidance"
JPMorgan (overweight)
Analysts led by Jose Asumendi write that it was overall a strong quarter
Say want to better understand how firm plans to offset some FX and fixed cost headwinds during conference call
Oddo BHF (neutral)
Analysts say the results are broadly in line with expectations
This may be a "slight disappointment" as Ferrari is usually expected to beat and messaging was "quite bullish" in a pre- close call
Focus will shift to any commentary in the call around effects of Middle East crisis
"Order book is described as 'further extending towards the end of 2027,' vs 'towards 2027' at the time of the FY25 results report," they note
Bloomberg data show that 77.4% of Wall Street analysts covering Ferrari have a "Buy" rating, while 22.6% are "Neutral" and 0% are "Sell."
Ferrari shares...
Ferrari is set to unveil its fully electric supercar, the Luce, later this month. As we noted last week, sports car buyers are shunning hybrids and chasing V-8s and V-12s.
Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 11:20Two months ago, the BLS reported that January job openings unexpectedly soared by 400K, the biggest increase since November 2024, to 6.946MM, the highest since last October. Then, one month later it turned out the jump was even higher than that when the BLS published the February JOLTS print, when we learned that the January job print was revised massively higher by another 300K to 7.240MM from 6.946MM, a surge of 690K and the biggest since 2022; February job openings however promptly tumbled back to 6.882MM, or just shy of the 6.890MM estimate. Fast forward to today when we just got the latest, March, job openings print which saw another modest drop, sliding from the upward revised February print of 6.922MM to 6.866MM, or practically in line with estimates of 6.850MM.
According to the BLS, the number of job openings plunged in professional and business services (-318,000) but increased in finance and insurance (+98,000). There were also increases in Private Education and Health services, Construction and Manufacturing jobs, offset by a modest drop in Leisure and Hospitality.
Meanwhile, the slid in government and federal job openings continues.
The modest drop in March job openings, coupled with the bigger drop in unemployed workers means that there were 373K fewer job openings than unemployed workers in March, an improvement from the 649K in February.
It also means that after rising back to 1.0x in January, in March the ratio of job openings to unemployed dropped back to 0.9x where it has generally been since last summer.
But while the job openings number was largely in line with expectations, recent revision gimmicks notwithstanding, the real surprise in this month's print was the number of Quits and Hires, both of which surged from 6 year lows.
The number of hires soared to 5.554 million (+655,000) and the rate increased to 3.5% in March, more than offsetting decreases in those measures the previous month. The number of hires increased in transportation, warehousing, and utilities (+108,000), and edged up in professional and business services (+165,000) and in accommodation and food services (+124,000). Hires decreased in federal government (-7,000).
As for quits, in March the number of quits also jumped, if less forcefully, by 125K to 3.171MM, led by quits in real estate and rental and leasing (+19,000).
Putting the hiring surge in context, the 655K increase in March hires was the best month since +4.1 million print recorded in April 2020 in the aftermath of the covid crisis, and the second highest ever. Stripping away the one-time covid shock, March was a record month for hiring which in light of everything else in the economy, does not really make much sense.
Since this number feeds directly into the payrolls calculations (after netting out separations) this explains why the March payrolls report was so much stronger (178K) than expected.
Overall, this was a solid JOLTS report and shows that after some significant weakness in late 2025, US labor market has managed to stabilize in early 2026. Of course, the report also lags the payrolls report by a month, which is why it gives us little insight into what Friday's jobs report will be.
Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 10:57Anyone has been in the bond markets for more than a minute remembers the fall of 2022 when UK PM Liz Truss was unceremoniously dumped by her own party after serving 45 days in office as the Gilts market collapsed at unprecedented speed amid economic chaos triggered by her 'mini-budget' (and multiple ministerial resignations).
The reason we reminisce is that this morning - after a long-weekend closed - UK Gilt yields are soaring once again... to their highest level since 1998 (and are a stunning 80bps above the Trussian highs) as worries intensified over local government elections and the impact of soaring energy prices on the economy.
While bond investors around the world have signaled their discontent with faster inflation and potentially higher interest rates, the UK stands out as the most extreme example.
As Bloomberg reports, the combination of Britain’s messy political landscape, with unpopular Prime Minister Keir Starmer likely to face a leadership challenge, feeble economy and strained government finances have made it a target for traders looking for a weak link.
“The market has one eye on the fact that Starmer’s days are numbered, and if not numbered then a further move to the left of the political spectrum is inevitable in an attempt to head off support for the Green party,” said Lloyd Harris, head of fixed income at Miton Group.
The UK 10-year yield has jumped 70 basis points since the start of the war, the biggest increase among a basket of developed markets tracked by Bloomberg over that period.
The UK's problems are both domestic and foreign.
This coming Thursday’s May local elections should keep focus high on the lingering risks of a flare-up in UK political or fiscal premium.
Goldman Sachs traders believe that options markets are right to price-in relatively limited vol premium for the day itself.
The larger risks are likely in the form of either leadership challenges to the PM, or a shift in focus back to a constrained fiscal position on account of the evolution of energy prices and Gilt yields throughout the energy shock, and both of these are likely less immediate.
And even if these risks do materialise, we expect the impact on Sterling to come as bouts of currency underperformance rather than a more concerted trend lower, consistent with the pattern over the past year.
However, in the minds of investors, big losses at the ballot box raise the chances that either Starmer or his replacement would have to boost government spending to win back disaffected voters, which would further pressure the UK’s finances.
On top of that, the UK’s reliance on imported energy has left it vulnerable to an economic shock from the war in the Middle East.
With oil prices stuck above $100, the fear is that faster inflation will force the central bank to hike interest rates even further.
Markets are now pricing in three quarter-point rate hikes this year, up from two last week.
Additionally, Bloomberg reports that some have speculated that the traditional buyers of UK bonds, like pension funds, aren’t as active in the market as they used to be, which is also helping to drive up yields.
For decades, British defined-benefit pension funds bought long-dated bonds to match against their liabilities, allowing the UK to extend the average maturity of its issuance well beyond peers. Many of those programs are now winding down.
While Starmer has outlasted Truss stay in office, the bond market appears to be demanding/predicting/fearing his fate may well be the same... and soon (for better or worse).
Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 10:40