On Oct. 27, 2026, the Supreme Court left in place a lower-court ruling that vacated the Biden-era “administrative closure” rule. The unsigned order, with no noted dissents, rejected a request by Baltimore, New Haven, Columbus and Centro Legal de la Raza to pause the Texas-DOJ consent judgment. The rule had allowed immigration judges to suspend deportation proceedings while migrants sought asylum, visas or other relief.
Texas sued in June 2026 arguing the Executive Office for Immigration Review lacked authority to adopt the rule; the Trump DOJ agreed. A federal judge in Wichita Falls vacated the rule the same day. The administration chose not to defend the regulation.
The Supreme Court, with no noted dissents, declined to block a Texas-DOJ agreement that vacated the Biden-era “administrative closure” rule. That rule allowed immigration judges to pause deportation proceedings while migrants pursued asylum or other relief.
In June 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to let the Trump administration end Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians, and also sided with the administration in a separate asylum ruling. This reports a politician's assertion, not an independently verifiable factual claim.
CNBC reported that Trump criticized Fox News and blamed it for GOP midterm losses amid ratings decline.
Kraft Heinz agreed to sell its North American coffee business to One Rock Capital Partners for $650 million.
The 10-year Treasury yield was little changed as investors digested Democrats' midterm wins.
B1. The Supreme Court just let a Biden-era immigration rule die, and not one justice objected.
B2. Not one? That's the part that stopped me.
B3. No noted dissents. The rule let judges pause deportation cases while people chased asylum or visas.
B4. Administrative closure, right. The Court left in place a lower court ruling that vacated it completely.
B5. Pepper Moirraine on X calls it Trump's unusual legal gambit that pays off.
B6. A loophole? It gave judges a docket tool. Deportation isn't supposed to be an assembly line.
B7. If a case is paused for years, that's not judging. That's amnesty through delay.
B8. Shutting it down overnight means some asylum claims never get heard.
B9. Judges can still decide cases. They just can't close them indefinitely.
B10. No, the issue is how this happened. Texas sued, the DOJ agreed, and a Wichita Falls judge vacated the rule the same day.
B11. The administration has every right to stop defending a rule it thinks is illegal.
B12. Challengers' attorney Joshua Salzman called it egregious collusion. He says it lets agencies bypass administrative law.
B13. That's his job. But Baltimore, New Haven and Columbus want to keep a delay machine because it's convenient.
B14. They're arguing vulnerable people get due process. Centro Legal de la Raza joined too. This isn't convenience.
B15. If the immigration review office lacked authority, the rule was illegal from the start.
B16. Then defend that in court. Don't have the DOJ collude with Texas to vacate it the same day. That's how you lose the rule of law.
B17. The administration is allowed to take a position. Agreeing with a state that's right isn't collusion.
B18. It is when you don't even try to defend the regulation. That's not normal.
B19. So your solution is to force the administration to defend a rule the president ran against?
B20. My solution is normal rulemaking: propose a new rule, justify it, get challenged. Not a one-day consent judgment.
B21. The Court had already let the administration end Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians this June.
B22. That's the backdrop. One pro-Trump account on X called it a Supreme Court double victory.
B23. The Court did hand the administration two six-three wins on immigration.
B24. Which is why this matters beyond the courtroom. It signals the Court will let the executive be more aggressive on deportation.
B25. I think that's true, and I don't like the speed.
B26. I don't need to persuade you. I just think the old rule was a mess.
B27. Fine. But 'pays off' is doing a lot of work in that post.
B28. It's a very Trump-era legal strategy: find a friendly judge, don't defend, win by default.
B29. You make it sound like a feature, not a bug.
B30. For immigration hawks, it is a feature.
B31. Let's shift—CNBC is reporting Trump is hammering Fox News again, blaming the network for GOP midterm losses.
B32. He's blaming the broadcaster? The man spends half his day watching it.
B33. Ratings are sliding, and he's a frequent critic of media he thinks are biased against him.
B34. I get it. Fox spent years as the Trump network. Then they started questioning him, and he's furious.
B35. But the GOP didn't lose the midterms because of Fox. Democrats won big in plenty of places.
B36. It's a weird argument even for him.
B37. He's looking for a message that keeps him as the leader, not the reason.
B38. That's too psychoanalyst for me. He's just angry at coverage he thinks is unfair.
B39. But if you blame the network for losses, you're admitting the network has more power than the party.
B40. Maybe he's not trying to win a debate. He's keeping his base angry at the media. That has worked.
B41. But after midterm losses, does it still work? That's the question.
B42. His base is still there. The question is whether independents are exhausted by it.
B43. CNBC also says Treasury yields are little changed as traders digest Democratic wins.
B44. So the market isn't panicking about the midterms. That's a signal.
B45. I'd say the market cares more about rates and the Fed than Fox News.
B46. Fair. But the political fight is just beginning.