Latest news with #AdministrativeOfficeoftheU.S.Courts
New York Post
5 days ago
- Business
- New York Post
New map reveals the most financially distressed states in the US — see which was dubbed most ‘desperate'
The state of their bank accounts is not good. The US has been plagued by economic uncertainty of late, but some regions were definitely hit harder than others. Personal finance company WalletHub recently unveiled a map showing the states with the most people suffering from financial distress — finding that Texas topped the list in this regard. That's right, despite being the largest economy in the world — with a GDP bigger than most countries — the Lone Star State has been in dire straits financially due to its citizens' low credit scores, deferred payments and bankruptcy filings, per the survey. Advertisement Meanwhile, New York came in at an unimpressive 19th place, proving that Empire Staters are floundering financially despite the Big Apple boasting the most billionaires on Earth. 4 'Measuring the share of residents in financial distress is a good way to take the pulse of a state and see whether people are generally thriving or having trouble making ends meet,' said WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo. 'When you combine data about people delaying payments with other metrics like bankruptcy filings and credit score changes, it paints a good picture of the overall economic trends of a state.' Yakobchuk Olena – WalletHub defined financial distress as having a credit account that is in forbearance, meaning 'the account holder is temporarily allowed to not make payments due to financial difficulty,' per the site. Advertisement This trend has unfortunately been on the rise as the country faces skyrocketing inflation — the effects of which have been exacerbated by tariffs and other government expenditures — fluctuating unemployment, natural disasters and other factors that have made it harder for Americans to pay their bills. To determine which regions were the most impacted, WalletHub compared the 50 states across key metrics, including average credit score, the change in the number of bankruptcy filings over the last year, and the percentage of people with accounts in distress. 4 Big Bend National Park in Texas, whose citizens were the most financial distressed, per the survey. Zack Frank – They also factored in the frequency of searches involving the terms while creating the map, which was based on data from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, credit reporting firm TransUnion, Google Trends, and its own database. Advertisement WalletHub then calculated the 'weighted average across all metrics to calculate an overall score for each state and used the resulting scores to rank-order the states.' 'Measuring the share of residents in financial distress is a good way to take the pulse of a state and see whether people are generally thriving or having trouble making ends meet,' said WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo. 'When you combine data about people delaying payments with other metrics like bankruptcy filings and credit score changes, it paints a good picture of the overall economic trends of a state.' 4 Waikiki Beach and Diamond Head on Oahu, Hawaii, whose residents boasted the lowest levels of financial distress. tomas del amo – Texas placed first in the economic hardship Olympiad. Advertisement The Southwestern hub's struggles were evident in the fact that its citizens boasted the ninth-lowest average credit score in first quarter of 2025, the third highest number of accounts with deferred payments and the seventh highest share of people with distressed accounts — at 7.1%. Texans also Google the terms 'debt' and 'loans' at an alarming clip, illustrating many people are 'desperate to borrow, despite already owing money,' per the site. 4 New York placed 19th when it came to the number of citizens with financial distress. Nicholas J. Klein – Clocking in second was Florida with the 'Panhandler' state boasting the second-highest increase in the percentage of people with distressed accounts from March 2024 to March 2024 — at nearly 23%. It also had sixth-highest overall share of people with accounts in distress, at 7.3%, redefining the term 'tropical depression.' Meanwhile, rounding out the top three were Louisiana, Nevada and South Carolina. Here are the ten states with the most people in financial distress Texas Florida Louisiana Nevada South Carolina Oklahoma North Carolina Mississippi Kentucky Alabama Thankfully, not all of the country was embroiled in as much economic turmoil. Advertisement The states with the lowest levels of financial distress were Hawaii, Vermont, and Alaska while New Jersey placed an admirable 7th place in this regard. Here are the 10 states with the lowest levels of financial distress
Newsweek
5 days ago
- Business
- Newsweek
Map Shows Which States Are Most 'Financially Distressed'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Newly published data from personal finance website WalletHub sheds light on how Americans are coping with financial pressures. By analyzing each state across several metrics, WalletHub created a ranking of states based on their levels of "financial distress," incorporating factors such as bankruptcy rates, average credit scores, and the frequency with which residents search distress-indicating terms like "debt" and "loans." Why It Matters Americans have faced several economic headwinds in recent years, including rising living costs, a precarious job market, and mounting consumer debt, all of which are taking a toll on personal finances. Add to this recent policy changes and the economic uncertainty surrounding tariffs, the effects of which are now beginning to be reflected in inflation data, as well as the sweeping budget package signed into law earlier this month. What To Know WalletHub's rankings and scoring system employed data from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, credit reporting firm TransUnion, Google Trends and its own database. States were analyzed across six key, weighted categories: Credit score (both averages and how these have changed since last year); the share of people with accounts in distress and changes in this since last year; change in the number of bankruptcy filings; as well as the frequency of searches involving the terms "debt" and "loans." The results of its analysis can be seen on the map below, created by Newsweek. According to WalletHub's analysis, Texas is home to the highest number of financially distressed individuals. It notes that this result is somewhat surprising, given that the Lone Star State excels across the most widely recognized indicators of economic success, including gross domestic product (GDP) and business activity. However, Texas's overall score was hurt by the personal finance issues facing many of its residents, as evidenced by low credit scores, as well as high rates and increases in the share of accounts in distress—credit accounts that are in forbearance or have had payments deferred due to financial difficulty. This is in addition to the frequency at which Texans are searching online for "debt" and "loans," which WalletHub said: "shows that many people are desperate to borrow, despite already owing money." Following Texas is Florida, another state with a strong economy, but with a high and growing number of accounts in distress. Louisiana is in third place, which WalletHub attributed, among other factors, to frequent searches for "loans," a "reflection of growing concern about personal finances." The remainder of the states rounding out WalletHub's top 10 are: 4. Nevada 5. South Carolina 6. Oklahoma 7. North Carolina 8. Mississippi 9. Kentucky 10. Alabama On the other end of the scale, residents of Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont are spared from financial distress, with low scores and favorable rankings across most categories. What People Are Saying WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo: "Measuring the share of residents in financial distress is a good way to take the pulse of a state and see whether people are generally thriving or having trouble making ends meet. When you combine data about people delaying payments with other metrics like bankruptcy filings and credit score changes, it paints a good picture of the overall economic trends of a state."
The Hill
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
The safety and security of US judges must be a bipartisan priority
It should go without saying that violence against those fulfilling their civic duty is abhorrent. The recent assassination of a state lawmaker in Minnesota demonstrates that such reminders must sadly be issued. In recent years, federal and state judges, along with their family members, have also experienced increasing threats and acts of violence. In his '2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary,' Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts astutely noted a need for increased safety for federal judges, referencing the tragic murders of federal judges Richard Daronco and Robert Smith Vance, and in more recent years the killing of Daniel Anderl, who was murdered by a man targeting his mother, federal Judge Esther Salas. 'There is of course no place for violence directed at judges for doing their job,' Roberts wrote. Yet, threats of violence are unfortunately growing every year. According to U.S. Marshals Service statistics, threats aimed at judges have more than tripled over the past decade. In the past five years alone, there have been 'more than 1,000 serious threats against federal judges,' according to Roberts's report. Because of this, the federal judiciary is asking for a 19 percent increase in funding for safety for the 2026 fiscal year. This is not an unreasonable request, given security funding has remained flat for two straight years, despite the escalating threats. The funding is needed not only to safeguard our judges but our justice system. 'The independence of the judicial branch is jeopardized when judges are threatened with harm or impeachment for their rulings,' Judge Robert J. Conrad Jr., director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and secretary of the Judicial Conference, stated in a May congressional hearing. 'Our constitutional system depends on judges who can make decisions free from threats and intimidation. This is essential not just for the safety of judges and their families, but also to protect our democracy.' Despite the blatant acts of brutality, and an outcry from the Chief Justice, the judiciary is battling for its own protection. Fearmongering and intimidation tactics against judges are growing across social media platforms, often incited by leaders from the co-equal branches of government. At a time when political violence is only worsening, it is evident that the responsibility to protect the judiciary has fallen on those who have served and those who are willing to help. Organizations such as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Common Cause and Protect Democracy recently joined together to sign a letter to the House and Senate appropriations committees urging legislators to protect the judiciary, one strong example of efforts being taken to protect federal judges. We, as retired judges, must act. That is why Keep Our Republic's Article III Coalition — a group of more than 40 retired federal judges — comes at an essential moment in our country's history. We must advocate for the safety of our fellow judges, families and our democracy. As the legitimacy of judicial orders, and judges themselves, are increasingly questioned, we must remind the nation why the role of an independent judiciary — free from the fear of violence — is foundational to our democracy. There is a reason that judges' constitutional oath requires that we decide cases without 'fear or favor.' Favor is immediately clear. A judge biased towards one party cannot dispense justice. But fear too impedes the independence of a judge. A judge that is afraid a ruling may elicit violent retribution cannot act impartially. As Roberts concluded in his 2024 report, 'violence, intimidation, and defiance directed at judges because of their work undermine our republic and are wholly unacceptable.' Congress must adequately fund the judiciary to ensure both the safety of judges and the health of our democracy.
Yahoo
17-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
See what's in the Supreme Court justices' annual financial disclosures
Washington — Annual financial disclosures for members of the Supreme Court were released to the public Tuesday, detailing the gifts and incomes the justices received in 2024, as well as any positions held outside of the court. Reports for eight of the nine sitting members of the high court were due on May 15. Justice Samuel Alito requested a 90-day extension, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, as he has done in the past. The financial disclosure report showed three of the justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson — brought in money from books last year. Jackson raked in $2 million from Penguin Random House, the publisher of her memoir, "Lovely One," while Sotomayor earned more than $130,000 in royalties and an advance. Gorsuch brought in $250,000 in royalties from HarperCollins Publishers, and an additional $259 from Princeton University Press. Sotomayor said that she visited the Coterie Theatre in Kansas City, Missouri, to "review a workshop performance" of "Just Ask," her children's book that was adapted as a musical. The trip was valued at $1,437, according to her report. The justice also listed reimbursements for travel, lodging and meals from universities in the U.S., Panama, Switzerland and Austria, where she participated in conferences and other speaking events. Justice Clarence Thomas, whose disclosures have come under scrutiny because of travels with his longtime friend and real estate developer Harlan Crow, reported no gifts, reimbursements or outside income from last year. He remains an honorary member of the Horatio Alger Association, according to his filing. Several Supreme Court members disclosed teaching positions, including Chief Justice John Roberts, who taught a two-week course for New England Law's summer program in Galway, Ireland, in July 2024. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett each were adjunct professors at Notre Dame Law School, earning just over $31,800 apiece, according to their reports. Gorsuch taught at George Mason University last year and was paid $30,000. Kavanaugh continues to coach girls' basketball, his disclosure shows. Filed annually to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the disclosures have received heightened attention since ProPublica revealed in 2023 luxury trips Thomas accepted from Crow, a major GOP donor, across their more than two-decade-long friendship. The justice's vacations to Bali and a private club in California had not been included on his financial disclosure reports at the time, and flights on Crow's private plane had also been omitted. Thomas has long maintained that he did not believe he had to disclose the travel and vowed to comply with guidelines about personal hospitality issued in 2023 by the Judicial Conference, the policymaking body for the federal judiciary. His report for 2022 did include flights Thomas took aboard Crow's private jet, as well as lodging at the developer's property in the Adirondacks. Thomas' disclosure form covering 2023 included an amendment to his 2019 report that listed two trips he took with Crow that year to Bali and Monte Rio, California. Still, the details about his travels with Crow ignited calls for a code of conduct for the Supreme Court. The high court adopted formal ethics rules and principles in November 2023, which all nine justices pledged to adhere to. But the code came under scrutiny because it does not include a mechanism for enforcement. American stranded in Israel with her family speaks out amid airstrike exchanges with Iran May retail sales drop more than expected Everything we know about Israel, Iran and where Trump stands on the conflict
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US judges warn of threats, ask Congress for more security funding
By Nate Raymond (Reuters) - Key members of the U.S. federal judiciary asked lawmakers to increase security funding on Wednesday, as the court system grapples with a rising number of threats against judges who have blocked parts of the Trump administration's agenda. U.S. Circuit Judge Amy St. Eve told a U.S. House of Representatives panel that increasing security spending to $892 million, up 19% from the current fiscal year, would enable the court system to respond to rising threats directed at judges and to ensure their safety and that of their families. Tensions are high between the administration of Republican President Donald Trump and the judiciary, whose members have been targeted by a barrage of threats after blocking parts of Trump's immigration and cost-cutting agenda. Judge Robert Conrad, who heads the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the judiciary's administrative arm, told lawmakers that threats of reprisals and retribution erode the rule of law. "The independence of the judicial branch is jeopardized when judges are threatened with harm or impeachment on the basis of their rulings," he said. "Our constitutional system depends on judges who are sworn to administer justice without respect to persons." Trump and his allies have called judges who have ruled against his administration "crooked," "conflicted" and "rogue," with the White House arguing they are intruding on his authority. Conservative lawmakers in the Republican-led House have even moved to impeach some of the judges. A Reuters investigation this month identified at least 11 federal judges whose families have faced threats of violence or harassment after they ruled against the Trump administration. Pizzas have also been sent anonymously to the homes of several judges and their relatives, which authorities view as a form of intimidation. Testifying before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, St. Eve and Conrad, who were both appointed by Republican presidents, urged lawmakers to increase spending on the judiciary by 9.3% in the 2026 fiscal year to $9.4 billion, even as Republicans in Congress look to slash spending on the government. St. Eve, an appellate judge who chairs the U.S. Judicial Conference, the budget committee for the judiciary's policymaking arm, said the $892 million security increase included in the budget request was warranted to address projects the courts deferred following two consecutive years of flat funding. She said an increased security budget would help pay for court security officers, screening and other security equipment at courthouses, and a program that 77% of active judges are enrolled in that helps them scrub their home addresses and other personal information from the internet. While committee members from both parties said they understood the need to ensure judges' security, Representative Michael Cloud, a Republican from Texas, called it dangerous for Conrad to discuss calls to impeach judges in combination with the need to protect them from harmful threats. He said he was disappointed with Chief U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts' decision in March to publicly rebuke Trump for calling for the impeachment of one judge and said district court judges who restricted Trump's executive authority were going "well beyond" the Constitution. "Impeachment is a constitutional role to hold the judiciary accountable," Cloud said. The U.S. Constitution provides that the grounds for impeachment are treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Conrad told Cloud that when individuals disagree with judges' decisions, "our tradition of justice has been to challenge those rulings, to appeal them, and to get the ruling that you think as a litigant you're entitled to."
