Elections

After implosions by Farfetch and MatchesFashion — and with other blowouts possible — the future for online fashion retailers looks uncertain.Rosh Mahtani, the founder of the jewelry brand Alighieri, is celebrating the 10th anniversary of her company this year. Her handmade gold-plated pieces, inspired by Dante’s “Divine Comedy,” made her a winner of the Queen Elizabeth II Award for British Design and a mainstay of luxury e-commerce vendors.During Paris Fashion Week last month, buyers came to her showroom to select stock for the upcoming season, including MatchesFashion, a leading multibrand fashion retailer that is responsible for about half a million pounds, or $630,000, of Alighieri’s projected revenues. But there was a problem.“They had owed me 70,000 pounds [about $88,000] in unpaid invoices since October and had been asking for discounts on those bills,” Ms. Mahtani said last week. It made her uneasy, even if such bargaining was increasingly commonplace for independent brands like hers. Still, she said, she wasn’t quaking in her boots.“The team made a selection, and we talked about a capsule collection for the summer,” she said. “I don’t think any of us had a sense of what would come next.”Days later, MatchesFashion was put into administration (the British term for bankruptcy). Its owner, Frasers Group, which bought the company in December for about 52 million pounds, or $66 million, now said the operation was not commercially viable. Overnight, almost half of the staff was fired from a company that had been valued at $1 billion when it was sold to Apax Partners in 2017. Today, 200 brands are owed money and cannot access unsold inventory, and a furious customer base rages online about accessing orders or making returns.Rosh Mahtani, founder of cult jewelry label Alighieri, was owed substantial sums by MatchesFashion when the retailer was put into administration earlier this month.via Alighieri JewelryWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

The decision in favor of the federal government left in place a trial court injunction while courts determine whether the measure is legal. A federal appeals court late Tuesday ruled against Texas in its bitter clash with the federal government, deciding that a law allowing the state to arrest and deport migrants could not be implemented while the courts wrestled with the question of whether it is legal.A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which has a reputation for conservative rulings, sided in its 2-to-1 decision with lawyers for the Biden administration who have argued that the law violates the U.S. Constitution and decades of legal precedent.The panel’s 50-page majority opinion left in place an injunction imposed last month by a lower court in Austin, which found that the federal government was likely to succeed in its arguments against the law. The opinion was written by the Fifth Circuit’s chief judge, Priscilla Richman, a nominee of President George W. Bush, and was joined by Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, who was nominated to the bench by President Biden last year.Judge Richman found that Texas’ law conflicted with federal law and with Supreme Court precedent, particularly a 2012 immigration case, Arizona v. United States.“For nearly 150 years, the Supreme Court has held that the power to control immigration — the entry, admission and removal of noncitizens — is exclusively a federal power,” she wrote. “Texas has not shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits,” she said after discussing how various arguments made by the state fell short.It was a setback for Gov. Greg Abbott but not an unexpected one: The governor has said that he anticipated the fight over the law’s constitutionality to eventually reach the Supreme Court. Mr. Abbott has said the law, which allows the state to arrest and deport migrants on its own, is necessary to deal with the record number of migrants crossing into Texas from Mexico. We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Marilyn Lands, a Democrat, won a special election Tuesday for a State House seat in Alabama after campaigning on access to abortion and in vitro fertilization, underscoring the continued political potency of reproductive rights.Ms. Lands defeated her Republican opponent, Teddy Powell, by about 25 percentage points — an extraordinary margin in a swing district where she lost by seven points in 2022. The special election was called when David Cole, the Republican who had held the seat, resigned and pleaded guilty to voter fraud.“Today, Alabama women and families sent a clear message that will be heard in Montgomery and across the nation,” Ms. Lands, a licensed counselor, said Tuesday night. “Our legislature must repeal Alabama’s no-exceptions abortion ban, fully restore access to I.V.F. and protect the right to contraception.”Her election, in the largely suburban House District 10 in northern Alabama, does not change the balance of power in the state; Republicans still hold supermajorities in both its House and its Senate. And the race was small, with only about 6,000 votes cast.But the outcome and the margin add further evidence to the pile of election results over the nearly two years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade that abortion, and, now, I.V.F., is a reliably motivating issue. Democrats are counting on abortion rights in 2024 to continue to help power wins in key states.Alabama has banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with no exceptions for rape and incest. And last month, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos were people with rights — upending I.V.F. care, which typically involves creating multiple embryos but implanting only one at a time, and indefinitely freezing or sometimes destroying those left over.In response to the backlash over that ruling, the Alabama Legislature passed a law giving I.V.F. clinics criminal and civil immunity and Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican, signed it. It did not address embryos’ legal status.Mr. Powell, the Republican candidate, avoided talking about abortion and I.V.F. during the campaign, focusing instead on issues including education and local infrastructure. That strategy, which many national candidates have also adopted over the past two years, does not appear to have been effective.Heather Williams, the president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which works to elect Democrats to state legislatures, called Ms. Lands’s victory “a harbinger of things to come.”“Republicans across the country have been put on notice that there are consequences to attacks on I.V.F.,” Ms. Williams said.President Biden’s re-election campaign, which is planning to focus heavily on abortion as well, also highlighted the result, calling it a “major warning sign” for former President Donald J. Trump. Mr. Trump, who appointed three of the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe, has indicated that he is likely to support a 15-week federal abortion ban.“Voters will not stand for his attacks on reproductive health care,” Mr. Biden’s campaign manager, Julie Chavez Rodriguez, said in a statement. More

A conversation with the Times reporter who wrote about Mayor Karen Bass’s flagship program to solve homelessness.In the Venice Beach neighborhood, Candice Mariona was moved from a sidewalk where an encampment was being cleared by the city.Mark Abramson for The New York TimesAbout 171,000 people living in California are homeless, a total that has grown significantly over the past decade. If you live here, this has surely not gone without notice, as encampments have popped up on sidewalks and in public parks across the state in recent years.Though California accounts for 12 percent of the nation’s population, the state is home to 30 percent of all homeless people in the United States.My colleague Jill Cowan recently wrote about a new program spearheaded by Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles that’s aimed at eliminating the most visible encampments in the city. Bass took office in late 2022, and the program, Inside Safe, is at the core of her efforts to solve homelessness.The program provides motel rooms for homeless residents who agree to leave encampments, a shift from sweeps in which officials clear encampments and force people to leave. But while Inside Safe has moved more than 2,100 people into shelters, only 400 of them have since moved into permanent housing. That’s drawn criticism that the program is only a short-term fix and perhaps more for optics than helping Angelenos most in need.You can read Jill’s full article here.I spoke to Jill about her article and her reporting, which spanned more than a year. Here’s our conversation, lightly edited:Why did you decide to focus on Inside Safe?Because it was the mayor’s focus — it was the program she touted the most and it was meant to address some of the people who need it most. You reported that through Inside Safe and other programs, L.A. moved 21,000 people off the street and into temporary housing in 2023, about 4,000 more than it did in the prior year. How are Bass’s efforts seemingly more effective than her predecessors’?We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

A reader’s feelings are hurt after offering to fly to celebrate her sister’s 70th birthday only to be told not to bother, as “all her family” would be there.My sister and I live in different parts of the country. We’re not close, but we are cordial and visit each other every year or two. She is about to turn 70, so I offered to fly halfway across the country to help her celebrate. She declined, saying that “all her family” — her kids and grandkids — were coming for a party, so it wasn’t a good time for a visit. I stay in a hotel when I visit her, so it’s not a matter of putting me up, and there are no hard feelings between us. I am hurt not to be included. I thought I was family, too. I might have accepted a white lie (“I’m not doing anything special”), but telling me I’m not invited to her party seems hostile. Thoughts?SISTERI’m sorry your feelings are hurt. I’m also struck by how readily you placed yourself at the center of your sister’s birthday — in the same breath as reporting you aren’t close to her. (I get it, of course: We are all the starring players in our lives.) I agree that your sister chose her words poorly, but it doesn’t take a big leap to decipher what she really meant: She wants to focus on her children and grandchildren when they visit.Many siblings drift over time (and distance). And your “cordial” relationship with your sister is not uncommon: You may have been central to each other — formative, even — in early life but not so much today. That doesn’t take away from the warmth you feel for each other. She was simply being honest when she said she wanted to give her undivided attention to her children and grandchildren on her birthday. She may not get to see them as often as she would like.Your visit probably constitutes a different kind of special occasion: more nostalgic and rooted in the past. And a gentler reading of your sister’s response is that she didn’t want you to fly halfway across the country and feel neglected. So, I hope you can get past your hurt feelings and find another time for a sisterly celebration.Miguel PorlanNursing a Grudge to Honor a Friendship?In college, my best friend and I dated another pair of best friends. After we graduated, five years ago, the other couple broke up, but my partner and I are still together. My friend’s ex was unkind to her during their breakup, and she still resents him — even though they are both in other relationships now. The problem: The ex is moving to our city. My partner would like me to spend time with his friend and his girlfriend occasionally, but I think my friend would be hurt if I did. (And my partner will be hurt if I don’t!) Advice?We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

A proposed settlement between Visa and Mastercard and merchants on swipe fees promises savings, but it may also alter the economics of premium credit cards.A new class-action settlement between Visa, Mastercard and merchants could affect the economics behind premium credit cards.Tamir Kalifa for The New York TimesA settlement that could scramble the credit card business A long-running fight between the credit card giants Visa and Mastercard and retailers in the United States is nearing an end, with the promise of lower fees for merchants.But the proposed class-action settlement could have wider consequences, including for the lucrative business of high-end credit cards — and for retailers.What’s in the settlement: Visa and Mastercard said on Tuesday that they had agreed to reduce swipe fees, costs associated with the use of a credit card, for about five years. Lawyers for merchants who had brought the case estimate that this could save about $30 billion worth of fees.Perhaps more important, merchants will be able to raise their prices based on the kind of card. For example, buying groceries with a higher-fee card — typically a premium card like the Chase Sapphire Reserve — could become more expensive than paying with a lower-end one.Why it matters: Swipe fees, also known as interchange fees, are a big business; the Nilson Report, which tracks the payments industry, estimates that Visa, Mastercard and card-issuing banks collected $72 billion last year alone.For card issuers, much of that money is then funneled into rewards associated with high-end cards, which entice consumers to spend more, racking up more fees for the banks (and, potentially, interest on unpaid balances).We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

The Treasury secretary, who plans to make her second trip to China soon, will argue that the country’s excess industrial production warps supply chains.The Biden administration is growing increasingly concerned that a glut of heavily subsidized green technology exports from China is distorting global markets and plans to confront Chinese officials about the problem during an upcoming round of economic talks in Beijing.The tension over industrial policy is flaring as the United States invests heavily in production of solar technology and electric vehicle batteries with funding from the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, while China pumps money into its factory sector to help stimulate its sluggish economy. President Biden and Xi Jinping, China’s leader, have sought to stabilize the relationship between the world’s two largest economies, but differences over trade policy, investment restrictions and cyberespionage continue to strain ties.In a speech on Wednesday afternoon, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen will lay out her plans to raise the issue of overcapacity with her Chinese counterparts. At the Suniva solar cell factory in Norcross, Ga., she will warn that China’s export strategy threatens to destabilize global supply chains that are developing around industries such as solar, electric vehicles and lithium-ion batteries, according to a copy of her prepared remarks reviewed by The New York Times.“China’s overcapacity distorts global prices and production patterns and hurts American firms and workers, as well as firms and workers around the world,” Ms. Yellen will say. “Challenges for individual firms can lead to concentrated supply chains, negatively impacting global economic resilience.”The Treasury secretary is expected to make her second trip to China in the coming weeks. The South China Morning Post reported that she will visit Guangzhou and Beijing in early April. The Treasury Department declined to comment on her travel plans.In her speech in Georgia, Ms. Yellen will compare China’s investments in green energy technology production to what she described as its previous overinvestment in steel and aluminum, saying it created “global spillovers.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

The housing crisis is likely to be solved in cities and states, not Washington. President Biden worries about high housing costs. So do Republicans in Congress. The consensus reflects a major problem: Tens of millions of families, across red and blue states, struggle with rent and home prices. The reason is a longstanding housing shortage.But action in Washington won’t make a huge difference. America’s affordable housing crisis is likely to be solved in cities and states. In today’s newsletter, I’ll explain how many are already doing so in bipartisan fashion.Local laboratoriesHome prices are up about 60 percent over the past decade, adjusted for inflation. About a quarter of renters — some 12 million households — spend more than half their income on housing, far in excess of the one-third level that is considered healthy. Homeless camps have expanded, and “super commuters” — who drive for 90 minutes or longer to work — have migrated well beyond the expensive coasts to smaller cities like Spokane, Wash., and fast-growing metropolitan areas like Dallas and Phoenix.Generally, Republican-led states have been more affordable than Democratic-led ones. They tend to have fewer construction and environmental rules, which allows the housing supply to expand faster. But as rent and home prices climb beyond middle-income budgets in more places, states are racing to add housing.The legislation in each state varies. But in general it removes permitting and design barriers so new construction can be approved faster. States are also trying to alter zoning rules to allow a greater diversity of units in more neighborhoods.In San Diego. Sandy Huffaker for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More