(Trice Edney Wire) – In Washington, the name on a bill is often the opposite of what it does.
The Main Street Depositor Protection Act is the latest example. The name sounds noble. The math is not. Here is what the bill would change. The FDIC is the federal agency that pays you back if your bank closes its doors. Today, it covers up to $250,000 in each account. Most people never come close to that limit. Most small businesses do not either.
The bill would let the FDIC raise that limit as high as $5 million for business checking accounts that pay no interest. That is not a small bump. That is twenty times bigger.
Supporters say the change will help small community banks and the small businesses they serve. I wish that were true. It is not.
The current $250,000 limit already covers 99 out of every 100 bank accounts in this country. A study by JPMorgan Chase found that the typical small business keeps about $12,100 in its account on a normal day. The new limit would be more than 400 times higher than that.
So who really gains from a $5 million guarantee? Not the corner bakery. Not the family barbershop. Not the small farm down the road. The gain goes to the biggest depositors at the biggest banks. The bill even covers banks with more than $100 billion to their name. Fewer than one in 100 banks in America are that big. No honest person would call them “small.”
In other words, the bill takes the name of Main Street and hands the prize to Wall Street.
Here is the part that should worry every American. Insurance is not free. When the FDIC raises its guarantee, banks must pay more to fund it. When banks pay more, they lend less. When they lend less, the door closes hardest on the people who are already locked out.
Black-owned businesses are already turned down for loans 39 percent of the time. That is more than double the 18 percent rate for white-owned businesses.
Hispanic-owned businesses face a 29 percent denial rate. These are the dreamers most likely to hear “no” when they walk into a bank. A new cost on lending will make that “no” come faster and louder.
The economy runs on loans. When loans dry up, the trouble spreads. The Great Recession of 2008 began exactly that way. The people who pay the highest price are never the wealthiest. They are the families with the least cushion to fall back on.
The bill does offer a small shield to community banks under $10 billion. They would not pay the higher costs for ten years. That is a kind gesture. But the wider damage to the loan market will not wait ten years to arrive.
There is one more problem. Deposit insurance works in part because it has limits. Limits force big depositors to pay attention to where they put their money. That attention keeps banks honest. Take the limit away, and you take the watchdog away too. The taxpayer is left to clean up the mess.
The goal of helping Main Street is a good one. This bill is not the way to reach it.
If Congress wants to help small business, it should make loans easier and fairer to get. It should invest in the neighborhoods that banks have ignored for too long. It should knock down the doors that have stayed shut for Black and Hispanic business owners for generations.
And if big corporations want extra protection for their millions, they can pay for it themselves. The taxpayer should not be asked to insure the comfort of the rich while the dreams of working families go unfunded.
Read the name of a bill. Then read the math. The two should match. On the Main Street Depositor Protection Act, they do not.
Ben Jealous is a professor of practice at the University of Pennsylvania and former president and CEO of the NAACP.
Fannie Mae Austin passed away April 17, 2026, surrounded by her children. She graduated from Garfield High School, earned a bachelor’s degree from Grambling State University, and received master’s degrees from Seattle University and City University. She served Seattle Public Schools for 42 years, mostly as a guidance counselor.
Sis Fannie Mae Austin was the last living founding member of Greater New Bethel Missionary Baptist Church.
Fannie built a life with her husband, Lim Austin, and was a loving mother to Aaron Willis (Rema), Anthony Austin (Angela), Angela Austin-Chappelle (Dwane), Arneidra Austin (Daren), and Allen. She is survived by five siblings: Tommie Lee Willis, Vorn Willis, Patricia Gibson, Jerry Willis and Richard Willis; 12 grandchildren; four great-grandchildren; and an abundance of loved ones. Fannie was preceded in death by her parents, T.L. and Willie Mae Willis, and her son, Aaron.
The viewing will take place May 4, 1:00 -5:00 p.m., at Evergreen Washelli. Her homegoing service will be held May 5 at 11:00 a.m. at Damascus International Church, followed by a repass at the Royal Esquire Club at 3:00 p.m.
A person stands with a placard as immigrants' rights activists and demonstrators attend a rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on April 29. (Nathan Howard/Reuters via CNN Newsource)
A person stands with a placard as immigrants’ rights activists and demonstrators attend a rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on April 29. (Nathan Howard/Reuters via CNN Newsource)
By John Fritze and Devan Cole, CNN
(CNN) — The Supreme Court indicated Wednesday it will back President Donald Trump’s push to end temporary deportation protections for potentially millions of foreign nationals who hail from countries enduring war and natural disasters.
In one of the most significant immigration appeals to reach the high court during Trump’s second term, the six-justice conservative majority signaled that it believes federal courts might not even have the power to review legal challenges when an administration turns Temporary Protected Status designations on and off.
If that is true, it would have profound implications beyond the Haitian and Syrian nationals who challenged Trump’s decision to end TPS for their countries and could effectively bar suits against other decisions.
More than 1 million immigrants are permitted to live and work in the United States under the program.
Here are five takeaways from oral arguments:
Conservatives signal courts have no role
Several of the conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, focused on the idea that federal courts have no power to review the legality of TPS decisions. That’s because Congress included a provision in the TPS law that makes clear that an administration’s “determinations” are not reviewable.
“I really don’t understand how you can prevail,” conservative Justice Samuel Alito said, if the court interprets that provision as it has in past decisions.
Ahilan Arulanantham, the attorney arguing on behalf of Syrian TPS beneficiaries, argued that while a final decision isn’t reviewable, the process that officials used to get there can be challenged
But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, another conservative, seemed to doubt that.
“Why would Congress permit review of the procedural aspect when really what everybody cares about is the substance?” she asked.
The court’s focus on procedure, while technical, is also telling. Because the justices were so dialed in on whether the court could even review the case, they spent far less time talking about whether the Trump administration had violated the law or the Constitution in how it made its decisions.
Trump’s comments matter – but only to the liberals
Looming large over Trump’s revocation of TPS for Haiti are a history of offensive comments he has made about the island country and its people who have found a home in the US.
Those comments and similar ones from former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, the official who formally revoked TPS for Haitians last year, factored heavily into a federal judge’s decision to rule that the policy change was motivated at least in part by racial animus. That is important because if the decision to end TPS was made based on race, it would violate the equal protection clause.
The liberal justices zeroed in on that point Wednesday as they questioned whether the administration’s decision last year was unconstitutionally discriminatory.
“We have a president say at one point that Haiti is a ‘filthy,’ ‘dirty’ and ‘disgusting’ ‘shithole country,’” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s senior liberal, said at one point to Solicitor General D. John Sauer. “And where he complained that the United States takes people from such countries instead of people from Norway, Sweden or Denmark.”
“He declared illegal immigrants, which he associated with TPS, as ‘poisoning the blood’ of America,” Sotomayor said of Trump, adding: “I don’t see how that one statement” doesn’t show a “discriminatory purpose may have played a part in this decision.”
Sauer responded that the comments from Trump and Noem don’t mention race specifically.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also pressed Sauer to explain how the court was simply supposed to look past Trump’s comments when the lower court that considerd the TPS move did not.
“The statements about Haiti and eating pets and the names that were called with respect to these immigrants – even though they are lawfully in the United States – those are pretty recent,” she said, referring to Trump’s claims during the 2024 election that Haitian migrants in Ohio were eating dogs. “What do you say about those kinds of things?”
Sauer said the remarks were “made in different contexts that are remote in time” and are therefore “un-illuminating” for this case.
The court’s conservatives, however, largely avoided the president’s comments.
Kavanaugh focuses on present day Syria
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court’s conservative wing appointed by Trump, was one of the only justices who had questions about the administration’s actual decisions.
But those questions indicated Kavanaugh, who is often a key vote in high-profile cases, agreed with the administration’s decision.
The Obama administration granted TPS for certain Syrians in 2012 following the crackdown on protesters by former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. That designation was repeatedly extended amid a civil war that erupted there. But Trump officials have noted that the Assad regime fell in 2024, and the Department of Homeland Security announced that it would end the TPS designation last November.
“It’s not the Assad regime anymore though,” Kavanaugh told an attorney representing the Syrian immigrants. “After 53 years of complete oppression and brutal treatment, it’s gone.”
Picking up on a line from the administration’s brief, Kavanaugh pressed Arulanantham on how many Syrians had returned to the country on their own.
“So do you agree the Assad regime change is a significant change in the history of that country and the Middle East more broadly?” he asked.
“I don’t think it’s as simple as that,” Arulanantham responded.
But, Arulanantham said, he didn’t need to get into a debate about whether Syria today is safe or not because, he said, the point is the administration did not conduct an adequate review.
Kagan: ‘I mean, really?’
One of the central questions in the cases is whether the Department of Homeland Security sufficiently consulted with the State Department about conditions on the ground in the two countries before it moved ahead with terminating the TPS designations. That consultation is required by federal law, but the attorneys representing the TPS recipients said the Trump administration gave that process short shrift.
In both cases, a DHS lawyer employee emailed a State Department official about the designations, but the communications they received in return simply stated that State has no foreign policy concerns over a termination of TPS for Haiti and Syria.
Lower courts found that consultation to be far short of what federal law requires DHS to do. But Sauer told the justices that such consultation is highly deferential, and that it didn’t matter what other government agencies told DHS as part of the termination process so long as some communication occurred.
That prompted a series of increasingly incredulous hypothetical questions from liberal Justice Elena Kagan.
What if the DHS secretary asked the State Department for an assessment of the conditions in Syria but never received a response, she asked. What if, instead of responding with information about conditions on the ground, the State Department instead responded with thoughts on a recent baseball game?
“If she sought input from State, she has consulted,” Sauer responded flatly, adding that would full under the “plain meaning” of the word “consulting.”
“I mean, really?” Kagan shot back. “The plain meaning of the word ‘consultation’ seems to be, like, you consult with somebody on a topic.”
Sauer held firm. Even if the State Department was completely unresponsive, he said, the Homeland Security secretary had done all that was required under the law.
“If she sought input from State,” he said, “she has consulted.”
TPS for other countries at stake
The court’s decision, which is expected before the end of June, could affect more than 1 million immigrants in the United States, even though the case itself is focused on some 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians.
When former President Joe Biden left office, the US had provided — or extended — TPS protections for people from 17 countries.Since Trump returned to office last year, his administration has ended — or attempted to end — TPS designations for all 13 countries that have come up for revie.
The administration has also moved to end TPS designations for South Sudan, Syria and Ethiopia, among others. Many of those decisions are still being reviewed by federal courts and those cases will heavily influenced by what the Supreme Court majority concludes.
The Supreme Court reviewed one of those cases last year on its emergency docket. In that case, the justices twice allowed Trump to strip temporary deportation protections from some 300,000 Venezuelans. The court did not explain its reasoning.
Jackson wrote an dissent in one of those decisions accusing the administration of attempting to “disrupt as many lives as possible, as quickly as possible.”
CNN’s Priscilla Alvarez and Tami Luhby contributed to this report.
People look at handguns during The Nation's Gun Show in Chantilly, Virginia, in October 2015. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post/Getty Images/File via CNN Newsource)
People look at handguns during The Nation’s Gun Show in Chantilly, Virginia, in October 2015. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post/Getty Images/File via CNN Newsource)
By Holmes Lybrand, Hannah Rabinowitz, CNN
(CNN) — Days after a gunman charged security at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner in what investigators say was an attempt to kill President Donald Trump with legally-owned firearms, his Justice Department is further rolling back gun control measures.
“We’re repealing rules that went beyond what the law allows,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said Wednesday at a press conference. “We are cutting unnecessary red tape, and we are replacing confusion with clear, straightforward language so that everyday Americans don’t need a law degree just to understand their rights.”
The administration is proposing 34 new rules — marking the largest amount the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has issued “in the last 15 years combined,” Blanche said, adding that “nothing we are doing today weakens law enforcement.”
According to Blanche and the newly confirmed ATF Director Robert Cekada, the new rules will help gun sellers more easily abide by the law, including by adopting a more narrow definition of who must be a licensed seller.
Cekada, who was confirmed by the Senate Wednesday, also said the ATF would formally rescind a 2023 rule that restricted pistol braces. That rule was struck down in federal court.
A pistol brace, commonly used as an attachment for certain pistols, allow the user to hold the firearm against their shoulder while firing — similar to how long guns like shotguns and rifles are fired.
The Biden administration argued that the pistol brace converted the pistol into a barreled rifle, which can be more heavily regulated in the US.
When asked by CNN if the Justice Department would stop efforts to take gun rights away from non-violent offenders, including for marijuana and drug convictions, Blanche said “of course we are.”
“It’s not possible for us to just unwind” everything in one day, Blanche said. “But it’s also not as clunky as taking forever.”
Gun industry leaders stood behind Blanche as he spoke.
The administration has long been looking for ways to review current gun control laws.
Weeks after entering his second term, Trump signed an executive order requiring the Justice Department to review any regulations or “actions by the Biden Administration regarding firearms” and “to eliminate all infringements on Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”
In the executive order, Trump alleged the Biden administration went after people who sell firearms as part of their livelihood, known as federal firearms licensees, which Trump said “led to a nearly six-fold increase in enforcement actions against” those sellers.
President Joe Biden’s “zero-tolerance” policy for FFLs was meant to revoke licenses from sellers who failed to conduct background checks, sold firearms to an unlawful buyer, and other violations of the law.
“Firearms manufacturers have been de-banked or denied services simply because they make guns — which allow Americans to exercise a constitutional right,” Trump’s executive order from February last year said.
On Saturday, Trump himself was a target of a gunman, investigators say.
Cole Tomas Allen was arrested after rushing through security at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington, DC, armed with guns. He allegedly sent a note to his family sharing anti-Trump sentiment around the time of the attack.
“Let me reiterate that the Second Amendment will never be treated as a second-class right in the Trump administration,” Blanche said.
This story was updated with additional information from the press conference.
d4vd looks on from behind his defense attorney Marilyn Bednarski (right) during his arraignment on charges of murder in the case of Celeste Rivas Hernandez at Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center on April 20, in Los Angeles, California. (Ted Soqui/Pool/Getty Images via CNN Newsource)
d4vd looks on from behind his defense attorney Marilyn Bednarski (right) during his arraignment on charges of murder in the case of Celeste Rivas Hernandez at Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center on April 20, in Los Angeles, California. (Ted Soqui/Pool/Getty Images via CNN Newsource)
By Ray Sanchez, Matthew J. Friedman, CNN
Editor’s note: This story includes graphic and disturbing details.
Los Angeles (CNN) — Prosecutors have laid out a detailed and grisly timeline in their case against singer d4vd, who is accused of sexually abusing Celeste Rivas Hernandez starting when she was 13, then fatally stabbing her when she – at 14 years old – threatened to expose their relationship.
Celeste is believed to have been killed April 23, 2025, one day after she and d4vd, whose legal name is David Anthony Burke, had an argument in which she threatened to disclose damaging information about their relationship “to end his career and destroy his life,” according to a filing Wednesday from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.
The singer, whose first studio album was released days later, took “horrifying measures to destroy and discard the victim’s body,” the filing says.
D4vd, now 21, bought two chainsaws online that he used to dismember Celeste’s body in an inflatable pool, prosecutors allege, adding her DNA was found in his garage. The singer also made online purchases of a body bag and heavy-duty laundry bags, according to the court document.
Small blue plastic fragments were embedded in the victim’s remains, and an expert with Los Angeles police made “a physical fit match from the blue fragments to the blue inflatable pool” in which Celeste was dismembered, the document says.
D4vd “amputated her left ring and pinky fingers because her ring finger contained a tattoo of his name,” the filing says. “Her fingers have not been recovered.”
D4vd was arrested this month and has pleaded not guilty to charges of first-degree murder with special circumstances, continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 and mutilating human remains. He is innocent, his attorney said after his arraignment: Evidence “will show that David Burke did not murder Celeste Rivas Hernandez and he was not the cause of her death,” lawyer Blair Berk said.
A judge on Wednesday denied Berk’s request to seal the evidentiary filing, which the defense attorney says is “one-sided” and “replete with hearsay” and has the potential to taint a future jury pool. CNN has sought further comment from Berk.
Celeste was reported missing by family and friends on several occasions, starting in early 2024, and was last seen alive going to d4vd’s home last April. Her dismembered remains were found in the trunk of d4vd’s impounded Tesla in Los Angeles on September 8, a day after she would have turned 15.
Texts reveal sexual contact began when she was 13, prosecutors say
Evidence outlined by the state includes photos of Celeste and the singer engaged in sexual activity, which investigators say began when she was 13 and he was 18. Investigators believe the two met when Celeste was 11 years old, the filing says.
Text messages through March 2025 show how d4vd allegedly manipulated the victim. Celeste wrote in one message, according to prosecutors: “all we do is have sex and just hang out man I want more than that for myself.”
Celeste’s parents reported her missing in February 2024. Detectives with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office contacted d4vd, who told them he had only met her once and did not know her age, according to the court document.
When the teen returned home that February, her parents took away her cellphone. The defendant then drove to Lake Elsinore and paid a classmate of Celeste $1,000 to give her a phone, prosecutors say.
Celeste and d4vd spent significant time together throughout 2024, including weekend trips to his Hollywood Hills home and visits to Las Vegas, London and Texas, to meet the singer’s family, according to the court document. Text messages between the pair allegedly included references to sex, pregnancy, abortion and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.
‘He had to silence the victim,’ prosecutors say
The night before authorities say Celeste was likely killed, she had a lengthy argument with d4vd, described later in text messages that “reveal the victim’s jealousy over defendant’s relationships with other women, as defendant led her to believe they had a future together,” according to the court document.
“She became extremely upset and threatened to disclose damaging information about her relationship with defendant to end his career and destroy his life,” prosecutors wrote, noting that his first studio album’s release date was April 25, 2025.
On April 23, 2025, the singer sent an Uber to pick up Celeste at her home in Lake Elsinore at about 8:40 p.m. and bring her to his Hollywood Hills home around 10:10 p.m., the court document says.
At about 10:30 p.m. that night, d4vd texted Celeste in what prosecutors describe as part of his “premeditated plan to cover up the murder, as she was already dead by this time.”
“Knowing he had to silence the victim before she ruined his music career as she had threatened, very soon after her arrival at his home, defendant stabbed the victim to death multiple times and stood by while she bled out,” the filing says. “At no time did he call law enforcement or 911 or take her to an emergency room to attempt to save her life.”
Celeste died of “multiple penetrating injuries,” according to an autopsy report released this month. She had wounds on her chest and abdomen that “may represent sharp force injuries,” the Los Angeles County medical examiner’s office said in the report, which was signed in December but sealed for months at the request of law enforcement.
“The Rivas Hernandez family is absolutely devastated by the findings,” Celeste’s family said in a statement after the release of the autopsy report. “They respectfully ask for privacy, understanding, and patience as they process this information.”
Fuel prices are displayed at a Brooklyn gas station on April 28, 2026, in New York City. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images via CNN Newsource)
Fuel prices are displayed at a Brooklyn gas station on April 28, 2026, in New York City. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images via CNN Newsource)
By Alicia Wallace, CNN
(CNN) — Fast-rising gas prices lifted the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge to 3.5% in March, its highest rate in almost three years, new data showed Thursday.
The Personal Consumption Expenditures price index rose 0.7% from February, a faster-than-expected acceleration from the previous monthly pace of 0.4%, the Commerce Department reported Thursday. The annual rate of inflation, which jumped from 2.8% in February, is now running at its fastest pace since May 2023.
Economists were expecting the price index to rise 0.6% from the month before and 3.6% on an annual basis, according to FactSet.
The PCE Price Index is the inflation gauge the Federal Reserve uses for its 2% target rate.
The US-Israeli war against Iran, which is now entering its ninth week, has sent shockwaves through the global economy. Shipping traffic in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz has slowed to a trickle, choking off a vital waterway for the trade of oil, natural gas, fertilizer and other critical materials.
The sharp hike in energy prices, an aftershock of the Middle East conflict’s squeeze on the oil trade, was largely responsible for the sudden jump in inflation.
When excluding food and energy costs, prices rose 0.3% from the month before (a slight downshift from the 0.4% monthly gain notched in February) and increased 3.2% on an annual basis. That’s in line with what economists were expecting; however, the annual rate did move up from 3%.
In addition to the PCE price index, which the Federal Reserve uses for its 2% inflation target, Thursday’s Commerce Department report also provided a look at how households’ spending, income and savings were holding up.
Consumer spending jumped 0.9% from February, but when taking inflation into account, it rose just 0.2%.
The dollars consumers put in their gas tanks and toward other energy goods accounted for 42% of the month’s spending change, Commerce Department data shows.
Households’ personal and disposable (after-tax) income both rose at 0.6% paces in March; however, when accounting for inflation, disposable income dropped by 0.1%, the second consecutive monthly decline.
The personal saving rate fell for the second month in a row as well, dropping to 3.6% from 3.9% and landing at the lowest rate in four years.
Americans have had to adjust to sharply rising gas prices; however, the energy shock hit at a time when many consumers’ coffers were buffered a bit by larger tax refunds. Additionally, wage gains, although slowing, continue to outpace inflation, and some Americans are seeing wealth boosts from rising stock and home values.
The economy has remained “quite resilient,” despite inflation “misbehaving,” Fed Chair Jerome Powell said Wednesday as the US central bank opted to leave interest rates unchanged.
Separate data released Thursday added some support to that resiliency diagnosis: The economy grew at a 2% annualized rate during the first quarter; the estimated 189,000 jobless claims filed last week mark a nearly 60-year low; and workers’ wages and benefits rose at a stronger-than-expected rate of 3.4% during the first quarter.
The US economy does appear to still have “some gas in the tank,” but how much longer households can sustain high oil prices and potential accelerations in inflation remains a key question, noted Scott Anderson, chief US economist at BMO Capital Markets.
“If inflation pressures continue to build in the months ahead, it will be more and more difficult for consumers to keep up,” Anderson wrote in a note to investors on Thursday. “The rapid drop in the personal saving rate since the beginning of the year is a cautionary flag as we move into the second quarter.”
Hidden fees rarely show up in big, obvious ways. Instead, they tend to appear as small charges that blend into everyday spending, which is exactly why so many people miss them.
A few dollars here and there might not seem like a big deal in the moment, but those charges can quietly build up over time.
According to Consumer Reports, Americans may lose around $3,200 per year to hidden fees and charges tied to things like banking services, subscriptions, and everyday financial transactions.
The good news is that once you know where these fees tend to hide, it becomes much easier to spot them and decide whether they are worth keeping in your budget.
1. Watch for Banking Fees
Banking fees are one of the most common ways money quietly slips out of an account.
Overdraft fees are a good example. These charges happen when a purchase goes through, even though there isn’t enough money in the account to cover it. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the typical overdraft fee has historically been about $34 to $35 per transaction, meaning a small purchase can suddenly become much more expensive than expected.
The CFPB also reports that about 23 million households pay overdraft fees every year, showing just how common these charges still are.If you want to avoid these charges, take a few minutes to review your bank statements from the last couple of months.
Look for anything labeled overdraft, NSF, or maintenance fees. Many banks allow customers to set up balance alerts or link another account as a backup so purchases do not trigger these penalties.
2. Review Your Subscriptions
Subscriptions are another place where hidden spending tends to appear.
Streaming platforms, music services, fitness apps, software tools, and delivery memberships often renew automatically each month or each year. When those renewals happen quietly in the background, it becomes easy to keep paying for services you rarely use.
A quick subscription audit can reveal a lot. Open your banking app or credit card statement and scroll through the last few months of transactions. If you see the same charge appearing over and over again, ask yourself whether the service is something you actually use enough to justify the cost.
Many people find at least one forgotten subscription this way.
Photo: peopleimages12 via 123RF
3. Look Closely at Financial Apps
Modern financial apps are convenient to use, but it’s important to read the fee section before you use them so you understand exactly how the company makes money.
Some budgeting apps, payment platforms, or digital banking tools offer premium versions that come with monthly charges, while others offer services like instant transfers or early paycheck access that include optional fees.
Buy Now, Pay Later services also fall into this category. Though they usually advertise interest-free payments, they may still charge late fees if you miss a due date.
4. Run a Simple Fee Audit
Once you start looking for hidden charges, you will probably notice them more often.
One of the easiest ways to spot them is by doing a quick financial audit. Look at your bank and credit card statements from the past three months for recurring charges, service fees, or penalties.
Make note of anything that repeats or looks unfamiliar. Then ask yourself whether you actually want to keep paying for it.
Paying Attention Makes a Difference
Hidden fees work because a few dollars here and there rarely trigger concern, but over time, those small charges can quietly take a noticeable bite out of a budget.
Taking a few minutes to review your statements, question recurring charges, and understand how your financial apps work can go a long way toward keeping more of your money where it belongs.
Finances FYI is presented by JPMorgan Chase. JPMorgan Chase is making a $30 billion commitment over the next five years to address some of the largest drivers of the racial wealth divide.
Stacker compiled statistics on gas prices in Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA metro area using data from AAA. Gas prices are current as of April 27.
Seattle by the numbers – Gas current price: $5.70 — Washington average: $5.47 – Week change: +$0.09 (+1.7%) – Year change: +$1.23 (+27.4%) – Historical expensive gas price: $5.70 (4/27/26)
Metros with the least expensive gas #1. McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX: $3.34 #2. Brownsville-Harlingen, TX: $3.35 #3. Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR: $3.38
Read on to see which metros have the most expensive gas prices.
Rangsarit Chaiyakun // Shutterstock
#5. San Luis Obispo-Atascadero-Paso Robles, CA
– Regular gas price: $6.12
Istvan Csak // Shutterstock
#4. Santa Rosa, CA
– Regular gas price: $6.13
Daniel Avram // Shutterstock
#3. San Francisco, CA
– Regular gas price: $6.14
Elen Nika // Shutterstock
#2. Napa, CA
– Regular gas price: $6.14
Christian Mueller // Shutterstock
Home prices across the U.S. have remained at record highs for years, driven by a limited supply and a persistent homebuilding shortage. More recently, economic uncertainty has kept more homebuyers on the sidelines, but it’s also discouraged home sellers, further limiting new listings and putting upward pressure on prices. Sellers who are in the market often have to offer incentives to attract offers from buyers—many of whom are wary of how much they can afford.
On the bright side, prices have begun to grow more slowly, and Redfin predicts that housing will become more affordable as wages outpace prices. But so far this year, the housing market has remained very slow, leaving buyers and sellers trying to time their next move.
So, what’s been happening with home prices in Seattle, WA, in 2026, and how do they compare to previous years? Redfin Real Estate analyzed the city’s January-March average median sale price over the last four years to find out. All data represents the three-month average median from January-March 2026, 2025, 2024, 2023, and 2022.
Intended to provide Black voters an equal opportunity at political power, the Voting Rights Act is an important lever to prevent discrimination at the ballot box. But legal experts warn a Supreme Court decision hollowing out the law could reshape representation for a generation. Credit: iStock
Intended to provide Black voters an equal opportunity at political power, the Voting Rights Act is an important lever to prevent discrimination at the ballot box. But legal experts warn a Supreme Court decision hollowing out the law could reshape representation for a generation. Credit: iStock
When the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision on Wednesday that all but invalidates the Voting Rights Act, legal and voting-rights analysts called it a knockout blow to a powerful tool against racial discrimination at the ballot box. Political analysts predicted it would dismantle Black political power for a generation — or longer.
Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, was more succinct: “It’s evil genius, man.”
“This is a really slick opinion” that technically leaves the Voting Rights Act in place, but dismantles the enforcement mechanism and prevents an easy legislative fix, he says. “It ends up being a rewriting of the VRA” that “usurps” Congress’s power to write laws.
“We’re left with rights on paper but very few remedies, in fact,” Hewitt says. “This is about as bad as it gets.”
Louisiana Map Disputed
In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative supermajority dismantled Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the last remaining powerful provision of the 1965 civil rights law that prevents racial discrimination in voting. Section 2, which requires states to seek federal permission before changing voting laws, has been a bulwark against the marginalization of minority voters in redistricting.
At issue was a Louisiana congressional map that was specifically redrawn to create two majority-Black districts. Opponents of the plan sued, alleging the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Samuel Alito said taking race into consideration in creating Louisiana’s two new congressional seats — even though the state’s Black voters had been underrepresented in Congress for decades — represents “a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context.”
“Black people in this country have never enjoyed full representation of power. This decision makes it much less likely that we ever will.”
Damon Hewett, President, Lawyers Committee for civil rights Under law
The court’s three liberals, however, decried the decision and accused the conservative majority of “eviscerating” voting rights for millions of Americans. Their dissent, written by Justice Elena Kagan, warned that this ruling, combined with other actions, could lead to a resegregation of American society, effectively locking out minority voters.
Upending Decades of Law
“The Voting Rights Act is—or, now more accurately, was—‘one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation’s history,’” she wrote.
“It was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers. It ushered in awe-inspiring change, bringing this Nation closer to fulfilling the ideals of democracy and racial equality,” she added. “And it has been repeatedly, and overwhelmingly, reauthorized by the people’s representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say it is no longer needed—not the Members of this Court.”
The court’s decision is a major upheaval in U.S. civil rights law and gives lawmakers permission to draw districting plans that weaken the influence of Black and other minority voters. Some states may even rush ahead to try to redraw districts ahead of this year’s midterm elections.
In a statement, former President Barack Obama was blunt, calling the decision “just one more example of how a majority of the current Court seems intent on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach.”
But Obama also saw a silver lining: “The good news is that such setbacks can be overcome” at the ballot box. “But that will only happen if citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers” in every election, not just the upcoming midterms.
‘Herculean Task’
Hewett, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights president, agrees. But, he says, it won’t be easy.
The ruling “impairs black political power but doesn’t impair access to the ballot,” he says, noting that only a handful of states have the time and inclination to take advantage of the ruling this year. That’s because it takes time to redraw the maps and find candidates who qualify, and several states have already held congressional primary elections.
“I think the real action is between now and what happens in state houses next year,” he says. “A year from now, I think we’ll see a lot of damage” when states, looking for an edge in the 2028 congressional elections, begin redrawing voting maps.
“By that point, it’s completely open season on racial gerrymandering masked as partisanship,” Hewett says. “There will be a lot of bad results” with Black representatives losing their seats in newly gerrymandered districts.
Nevertheless, he says, his and other organizations “will keep pushing” even though “there is no easy solution. It’s a Herculean task. We’re in a time right now where we can only defend the laws of the past,” and a new approach is needed.
The bottom line, Hewett says, is “Black people in this country have never enjoyed full representation of power. This decision makes it much less likely that we ever will.”
