Hotter than expected CPI (as food costs reignite) and ugly jobless claims data (somewhat affected by Hurricane Helene) signal stagflationary pressures may be returning…

Source: Bloomberg

…sparked some initial chaos across asset classes, pushing rate-cut expectations lower (hawkish) for 2024 but higher (dovish) for 2025…

Source: Bloomberg

Stocks ended lower (with Small Caps the biggest loser) despite a late-day panic-bid into the close…

NVDA is holding it all together…

As VIX increased (now dramatically decoupled from stocks) ahead of tonight’s TSLA robotaxi event, and tomorrow’s PPI and the beginning of earnings season…

Source: Bloomberg

Treasuries were very mixed today with the short-end outperforming (2Y -3.5bps, 30Y +4bps)…

Source: Bloomberg

…which steepened the yield curve significantly, erasing all the post-payrolls flattening…

Source: Bloomberg

The dollar rallied for the 8th day in a row – the last time this happened, The Fed had just started hiking rates in April 2022…

Source: Bloomberg

Despite the dollar’s gains, gold also rallied today…

Source: Bloomberg

Bitcoin barfed late on today, back below the $60,000 Maginot Line once again (after an SEC lawsuit against digital asset market maker Cumberland DRW sparked more regulatory FUD)…

Source: Bloomberg

Oil prices also managed solid gains today after two ugly days with WTI back above $76…

Source: Bloomberg

Finally, the fundamental contradiction at the heart of today’s price moves is most easily seen in market measures of longer inflation expectations, which are rising even as two-year yields plumb session lows.

Source: Bloomberg

As Bloomberg’s Sebastian Boyd noted, the mixed nature of today’s data means that traders are trying to express the view that inflation is still a problem, but that the labor market is maybe weakening too, which will mean The Fed goes ahead with rate cuts anyway.

It’s no secret that Kamala Harris is a power-hungry authoritarian…

Now, a resurfaced clip from May of 2019 in which Harris fantasizes about weaponizing the DOJ against speech the government doesn’t like, and the platforms that allow it.

Speaking at the annual NAACP ‘Fight for Freedom Fund’ dinner in Detroit, Harris threatened: “We will put the Department of Justice of the United States back in the business of justice. We will double the civil rights division, and direct Law Enforcement to counter this extremism.

“We will hold Social Media Platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms – because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our Democracy. And if you profit off of hate, if you act as a megaphone for misinformation or cyber warfare. If you don’t police your platforms, we are going to hold you accountable as a community.”

Dear God, please save us 🙏 pic.twitter.com/I4knXZK3QO

— Joel Fischer 🇺🇸 (@realJoelFischer) October 10, 2024

And what happened next?

• The DOJ pushed to radically rewrite Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to limit the broad immunity protecting social media platforms.

• They then showered millions on ‘misinformation’ czars (some of whom were later disbanded).

• They prosecuted a guy who made a meme about Hillary Clinton suggesting that people could vote by text, while taking no action against a Democrat who did the exact same thing.

• The Biden-Harris administration infiltrated Twitter to censor COVID ‘misinformation’ and the Hunter Biden laptop story, and paid them for it.

• The Biden-Harris Surgeon General demanded that social media platforms censor ‘misinformation’ during the pandemic.

• Biden-Harris’ transgender HHS Assistant Secretary demanded that social media platforms censor “misinformation” over “gender-affirming care” for minors.

• A leaked 2022 FBI pamphlet listed ‘Misinformation’ and ‘Disinformation’ as ‘election crimes‘

What did we forget? Drop it in the comments below.

If this week’s 3Y auction was subpar, yesterday’s 10Y was mediocre, then today’s 30Y auction was an absolute stunner. In fact, one could saw it was the strongest 30Y auction on record.

Starting at the top, the high yield was 4.389%, up sharply from last month’s 4.015% and the highest since July’s 4.405%. But that was not a surprise to the market, where the When Issued had already been trading around 4.404%, meaning the auction stopped through by 1.5bps, the first non-tailing 30Y auction since June.

The bid to cover was 2.50, up sharply from 2.38 in September and the highest since June 2023. Needless to say, it was well above the recent average.

But the internals were where the auction truly shocked, because Indirects soared from 68.7% to a whopping 80.5%, the highest on record, as foreign central banks and various other entities just couldn’t get enough paper.

And with less than 20% left for other participants, Directs took down just 7.6%, the lowest since 2018, leaving Dealers holding 12.2% of the final allocation, the lowest since July 2023.

And that’s what the strongest 30Y auction – certainly in recent history, perhaps on record – looks like. Not surprisingly, with yields rising to session highs just ahead of the auction result, we have seen yields slide by about 3bps since as the market was clearly surprised with just how much demand there is for long-dated paper, suggesting that while the Fed may indeed slow down its easing cadence for a few months, it will eventually have to be much more aggressive in monetizing US debt at a time when both Kamala and Trump promise to pump tens of trillions more debt in the coming years.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled on Oct. 8 that rape qualifies as a “predicate offense” under the state law, allowing for suspects to be denied bail and held in pretrial detention.

The state’s highest court found that because rape involves the use of physical force, regardless of whether violence or coercion through nonphysical means is used against victims, the crime meets the pretrial detention threshold.

The ruling arises from the case of Alvin Campbell, who faces multiple charges for allegedly luring heavily intoxicated women into his vehicle by posing as a rideshare operator outside Boston-area bars and clubs and then raping them.

Campbell faces a series of charges related to the alleged sexual assaults spanning from 2017 to 2019, including aggravated rape, indecent assault and battery, kidnapping, and photographing an unsuspecting nude person. He has pleaded not guilty, claiming the encounters were consensual.

Since his arrest in January 2020, Campbell has been held without bail, after prosecutors moved for “pretrial detention based on dangerousness,” as allowed under the Massachusetts law commonly referred to as “Section 58A.” To detain someone under Section 58A, prosecutors must show the defendant has been charged with a “predicate offense,” a category of crimes that include those involving physical violence or threats of violence.

At Campbell’s arraignment, prosecutors argued that he posed a significant threat to the community and that no conditions of release could guarantee public safety. A Superior Court judge agreed, leading to Campbell’s continued detention.

In September 2022, Campbell filed a series of motions, including ones for reconsideration of his pretrial detention, which were subsequently denied. The judge who rejected Campbell’s requests reasoned that rape qualifies as a predicate offense for pretrial detention under the force clause of Section 58A because an element of rape includes the use or threatened use of force.

Campbell’s attorneys appealed, arguing that the statute was being misinterpreted, as not all instances of rape involve physical force beyond the act of penetration itself. The case ended up before the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which took a categorical approach, affirming that rape is inherently violent.

Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice Frank Gaziano, who authored the high court’s Oct. 8 opinion, wrote that even in cases where the victim is incapacitated or coerced through nonphysical means, the violation of bodily autonomy still amounts to the use of physical force. Gaziano further noted that the statute’s language and intent align with federal interpretations of similar force clauses, further supporting the view that physical force is central to the crime of rape.

“Our recognition of the myriad ways in which an assailant may deprive a victim of his or her consent does not diminish the undeniable presence of physical force in rape,” the high court’s opinion reads. “To decide otherwise and determine that rape is not an offense with physical force at its heart would be to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the violation.”

The decision has significant implications for future cases, as it underscores the court’s commitment to a broad interpretation of physical force under the force clause of Section 58A.

A separate though related case that ended up before the Massachusetts Supreme Court, known as Commonwealth v. Vieira, also focused on a challenge to pretrial detention based on Section 58A. In that case, the high court evaluated whether indecent assault and battery on a child under 14 constituted a predicate offense that justified pretrial detention under the statute’s force clause.

In Vieira, defense attorneys argued that expanding the interpretation of physical force to include crimes such as indecent assault and battery risked broadening the scope of pretrial detention beyond what the Legislature intended. They contended that such offenses might involve minimal or nonviolent contact, which does not rise to the level of physical force as required by the statute.

The high court acknowledged this argument and ultimately agreed, ruling that indecent assault and battery on a child did not qualify as a predicate offense under Section 58A, highlighting that only those crimes with clear and substantial physical force meet the threshold.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court’s Oct. 8 decision means Campbell will remain in custody as his case proceeds in lower courts, where he faces multiple indictments.

Attorneys for Campbell were not available for comment on the ruling before publication time.

Authored by Ken Silva via Headline USA,

The Justice Department has blamed an FBI informant for deleting video he took during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Hill uprising—footage that was sought by a Jan. 6 protestor as part of his criminal defense.

The DOJ’s disclosure about the FBI informant’s missing video came in a Thursday court filing in its case against Jan. 6 protestor William Pope, who’s representing himself. Pope sought footage taken by FBI informant and ex-Proud Boys member James Ehren Knowles of him entering the Capitol.

Pope initially requested the footage from the DOJ in February, and prosecutors eventually said on Sept. 17 that no such footage exists. Three days later, Pope filed his own response, explaining that the footage from must exist—because Knowles was seen on CCTV footage recording as he entered the Capitol, and because Knowles testified during last year’s Proud Boys trial that he indeed recorded.

The government just responded to the Court’s order in my case regarding whether FBI Informant James Ehren Knowles deleted video he recorded inside the Capitol on January 6. According to the government, he did. https://t.co/T7qBYcUlL4 pic.twitter.com/1yiHVu8cuJ

— 🇺🇸 (@FreeStateWill) October 10, 2024

“The question … is not then whether Knowles was filming (Knowles admitted under oath that he was) but whether the government has met their obligation to obtain the recordings made by their FBI informant, James Ehren Knowles,” Pope said.

“Since Knowles swore under oath that the FBI flashed a copy of his phone, the government has media Knowles recorded on January 6, and also has the ability to determine whether any media was copied or deleted from Knowles’ phone before the FBI flashed it.”

Pope further noted that Knowles testified last year that he doesn’t recall whether he gave the video he took to the FBI.

“It’s possible that Knowles gave the FBI the video, but does not recall. It’s also possible that Knowles retained his own copy, but did not provide it to the FBI. A third possibility is that FBI informant James Knowles deleted evidence that is material to my case,” Pope argued.

Pope’s blistering response prompted District Judge Rudolph Contreras to order the DOJ last week to tell the court whether “it believes Knowles deleted such alleged video and, if so, whether Plaintiff has the capacity to retrieve such data from the purported mirror-image copy of his phone taken by the FBI.”

Responding to the judge’s order on Wednesday, the DOJ claimed that Knowles deleted the footage.

According to the DOJ, the FBI has reviewed Knowles’ phone again, and hasn’t found any footage of him entering the Capitol.

“Based on the Individual’s testimony, his statements to the FBI, and a review of the full image of his cellphone, the government believes that [Knowles] did delete images and/or videos that he recorded on January 6,” prosecutors said, adding that it’s “unclear” whether the footage Pope sought would have been useful to him.

Pope’s trial is set for Dec. 2.

Ken Silva is a staff writer at Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/jd_cashless.

Authored by Chase Smith via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Officials in Florida have warned of the fire danger posed by electric vehicles (EVs) that are inundated by floodwaters as Hurricane Milton began its assault on the Sunshine State on Oct. 9.

Tampa Mayor Jane Castor reminded residents in a press conference early Wednesday that city garages were left open and urged electric vehicle owners in particular to take advantage of the upper floors in garages to avoid flood and fire risk.

“You can put your electric vehicles up high,” Castor said in the press conference. “Make sure you are elevating all those electric batteries and electric items as well because those batteries—once they start on fire—they cannot be extinguished.”

She added that some houses were lost during Hurricane Helene two weeks ago to fires sparked by saltwater flooding electric vehicles.

Prior to that storm, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis also warned residents of the risk of fire from electric vehicles and flood waters, as contact with saltwater can short-circuit the batteries, causing a chain reaction known as thermal runaway in which heat energy is released from the battery to cause a fire.

The City of Tampa mobility department noted all parking fees were removed in anticipation of Hurricane Milton to encourage more EV users to take advantage of above-ground parking.

“During Hurricane Helene, at least two house fires were caused by electric vehicle batteries that came in contact with floodwater,” the city added in a notice to residents on Wednesday.

Tampa’s warning to its residents is an example of broader concerns of EV-related flood and fire risk, as Florida CFO and State Fire Marshal Jimmy Patronis on Monday called on EV manufacturers to take steps to protect lives during Hurricane Milton.

“The CFO’s Division of State Fire Marshal has confirmed 48 lithium-ion battery fires related to storm surge from Hurricane Helene, with 11 of those fires associated with EVs,” the agency said in a fire safety alert to Florida residents. “Consumer items containing lithium-ion batteries include cars, scooters, hover boards, golf carts or children’s toys. The CFO also called on EV manufacturers to be pro-active by alerting consumers to place their EVs to higher ground.”

Patronis said if residents have one of these vehicles, scooters, hoverboards, golf carts or children’s toys that have been compromised by flooding, they should be unplugged and moved safely away from homes and apartments into open spaces.

“If a vehicle needs to be towed, contact a reputable tow company in your area to safely remove it from your property,” he added. “EVs and lithium-battery powered devices cannot be disposed of in a typical car lot or trash bin, so you will also want to contact your local government on the best locations for safe disposal.”

He also issued a plea to EV manufacturers in the United States to be proactive in notifying their customers of such risks.

“As I’ve stated before, these compromised vehicles and devices are ticking time bombs, and my office will continue to coordinate with federal, state, and local officials to ensure consumers and first responders are aware of these fire hazards following Hurricane Milton,” Patronis added. “After the storm, if you do have an EV that has been flooded by saltwater and it remains in your garage or near your home, please remove it immediately to a safe location so that you can worry about fixing your home, instead of rebuilding it due to fire.”

The fire marshal says to ensure safety, keep all windows and doors open to allow any flammable gasses to vent from the vehicle’s passenger compartment.

Other tips include, if stored indoors, moving the vehicle outside if possible; otherwise, keeping the area well-ventilated.

Do not charge the vehicle, and disable it by chocking the wheels, placing the gearshift in park and disconnecting the ignition key or 12V battery.

Avoid contact with high-voltage batteries, especially if there are signs of damage or overheating; and always follow the manufacturer’s guidelines for your specific vehicle.

Tesla, one of the most popular EV manufacturers, issued guidance on its website for owners who have or may encounter a flooding event. The company recommends moving EVs to higher ground ahead of potential “submersion events” and immediately stepping away and contacting first responders if one notices “fire, smoke, audible popping/hissing or heating coming from your vehicle.”

Even in the absence of those signs, owners are urged to call their insurance companies if water has reached the vehicle’s battery so it can undergo a safety inspection. For Tesla owners, Tesla Service will offer an inspection, and Tesla Roadside Assistance can tow the vehicle to a safe 50-foot distance away from any structures or other vehicles.

Similar issues came to light after Hurricane Ian in 2022, when Patronis said many EVs were disabled.

“As those batteries corrode, fires start,” he said at the time. “That’s a new challenge that our firefighters haven’t faced before. At least on this kind of scale.”

EV fires after hurricanes were first reported following Superstorm Sandy in New Jersey in 2012.

Allen Zhong and Jacob Burg contributed to this report.

The United Nations has issued a statement estimating that 600,000 Lebanese have now been internally displaced from their homes amid the ongoing Hezbollah-Israel war, and as a massive Israeli bombing campaign on the capital of Beirut has continued. Another 300,000 have already fled the country. The UN called the situation “catastrophic”.

“Lebanon finds itself facing a conflict and a humanitarian crisis of catastrophic proportions,” Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, the UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon, said. She described that the UN and Western leaders remain hopeful “that Israel too will now be ready to add its support to the many calls and appeals that are out there” for de-escalation and potential ceasefire.

Another official, Imran Riza, who is UN’s humanitarian coordinator described that Lebanon is facing “one of the deadliest periods” given that 600,000 civilians are internally displaced. He identified that over 350,000 these internal refugees are children. “Even wars have rules.” This week the US State Department appeared to back off the idea of calling for immediate ceasefire. The US wants to see Hezbollah weakened and defeated.

Israel has pushed back against the growing international criticism of its large-scale bombing of dense neighborhoods by saying, “We are not targeting civilians. But at the same time, if we will find Hezbollah activities or intention to launch rockets into Israel, we will do what any other country would do about it,” according to the words of Israel’s ambassador to the UN Danny Danon.

Since Sept. 23, Lebanon’s Health Ministry has said Israeli aggression has killed more than 1,323 people and injured nearly 3,700; however, Lebanon’s government figures make no distinction between combatants and civilians. Overall, going back to Oct.8, 2023 in the wake of the Hamas terror attacks and the conflict’s origin, Lebanon says a total of  2,141 have been called and over 10,000 injured.

As for what amounts to 900,000 displaced at this point, the NY Times summarizes:

More than 600,000 people have been displaced within Lebanon, and over 300,000 more have left the country since the war broke out last month, the U.N. said, a total nearly on par with the number of people displaced during Lebanon’s 2006 war with Israel. Lebanese officials have put the total latest displacement figure at more than one million.

Hezbollah, for its part, has stepped up deeper rocket attacks into Israel, the last several days sending hundreds of rockets on the north, and many dozens on the port city of Haifa, in some cases damaging infrastructure and causing injuries to Israeli civilians.

In southern Lebanon, Israel’s military has ordered over 100 towns and villages to evacuate north. It is trying to create a buffer zone to precent Hezbollah launches into northern Israel.

The UN says a quarter of Lebanese territory is now under Israeli military displacement orders. “Lebanon’s humanitarian crisis is deteriorating at an alarming rate. Israeli airstrikes have not only intensified but also expanded into previously unaffected areas and increasingly targeted critical civilian infrastructure,” the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said Wednesday.

Authored by Chase Smith via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

More than a dozen states are coming together to sue TikTok, joining many other states that had previously done so, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and New York Attorney General Letitia James announced on Oct. 8.

The attorneys general announced that they are co-leading a bipartisan coalition of 14 attorneys general in filing suits against the social media company.

The legal actions, filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court and other jurisdictions, accuse the social media platform of exploiting and harming young users while deceiving the public about its dangers.

“Our investigation has revealed that TikTok cultivates social media addiction to boost corporate profits,” Bonta said in a statement. “TikTok intentionally targets children because they know kids do not yet have the defenses or capacity to create healthy boundaries around addictive content. When we look at the youth mental health crisis and the revenue machine TikTok has created, fueled by the time and attention of our young people, it’s devastatingly obvious: Our children and teens never stood a chance against these social media behemoths.”

A TikTok spokesperson told The Epoch Times that they “strongly disagree” with the claims by the attorneys general, many of which they believe to be “inaccurate and misleading.”

“We’re proud of and remain deeply committed to the work we’ve done to protect teens and we will continue to update and improve our product,” Michael Hughes, a TikTok spokesperson said in an email. “We provide robust safeguards, proactively remove suspected underage users, and have voluntarily launched safety features such as default screentime limits, family pairing, and privacy by default for minors under 16.”

The company added they have tried to work with the attorneys general for over two years, stating it is “incredibly disappointing they have taken this step rather than work with us on constructive solutions to industrywide challenges.”

The lawsuits allege that TikTok’s business model focuses on maximizing young users’ time on the platform to increase revenue from targeted advertising.

The attorneys general accused the company of employing manipulative features designed to keep minors engaged compulsively, despite the dangers of excessive use.

Specific features cited include the following:

• Beauty Filters: Alleged to foster unrealistic beauty standards and harm self-esteem, potentially leading to negative body image issues among young users.
• Autoplay and Infinite Scroll: Designed to make it difficult for users to disengage, leading to longer periods of uninterrupted use.
• Time-Sensitive Content: Features like TikTok Stories and TikTok Live exploit users’ fear of missing out, encouraging them to return to the platform frequently.
• Push Notifications: Used to entice young users back onto the platform, sometimes employing fake notifications to manipulate engagement.
• Social Validation Through Likes and Comments: Highlighting these metrics can have a powerful effect on young users, driving compulsive use and impacting mental health.

The coalition said that TikTok violates state consumer protection laws, including California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. They seek significant penalties, as well as injunctive and monetary relief, to address the alleged misconduct.

The use of TikTok is widespread among young people in the United States. A 2023 Pew Research survey found that 63 percent of Americans aged 13 to 17 reported using TikTok, with 17 percent stating they are on the platform “almost constantly,” according to the suits.

Attorneys general from Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Jersey, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia joined the legal action.

With the latest filing, 23 attorneys general have now filed actions against TikTok regarding its conduct toward youth, including previous lawsuits from states like Utah, Nevada, Indiana, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and Texas.

“Kids and families across the country are desperate for help to address this crisis, and we are doing everything in our power to protect them,” said James, New York attorney general.

Bonta previously announced in 2022 a nationwide investigation into TikTok and later filed an amicus brief demanding the company comply with state investigations.

In October 2023, the state also joined a bipartisan coalition in filing a federal lawsuit against Meta, alleging the company designed features that addict children and teens to their detriment.

Not even lottery tickets are immune to the inflationary disaster created under the Biden/Harris administration. 

Mega Millions ticket prices will rise from $2 to $5 in April 2025, but the company – doing its best Stephanie Kelton impression – promises “bigger jackpots” and more chances to win, according to Consumer Affairs.

Of course, they mean bigger nominal jackpots, as by the time the changes are implemented it’ll likely cost $50 for your morning coffee, but we digress…

Joshua Johnston, Lead Director of the Mega Millions Consortium, commented: “We are creating a game that both our existing players and people new to Mega Millions will love and get excited about playing.”

He added: “We expect more billion-dollar jackpots than ever before, meaning creating more billionaires and many more millionaires as the jackpots climb, plus this game will continue the important legacy of supporting great causes everywhere Mega Millions is played.”

Consumer Affairs writes that this is only the second price hike since Mega Millions’ current format launched over 20 years ago – but the last increase was in 2017, when tickets doubled from $1 to $2.

The new ticket price comes with enhanced features: better odds of hitting the jackpot, more frequent and larger starting jackpots, faster growth, and a built-in multiplier that can boost non-jackpot wins up to $10 million. Players will also no longer face breakeven prizes—every win will exceed the ticket cost.

The company aims to attract both seasoned players and newcomers with these updates, hoping to build on a history that has produced six billion-dollar winners since 2018. The largest prize, $1.6 billion, was claimed by a Florida resident in August 2023. With these changes, Mega Millions hopes to welcome more players into the billion-dollar club.

Although the changes take effect in April 2025, players can still participate in drawings every Tuesday and Friday night at 11 p.m. ET.

At this rate, rising 150% every 6 years, tickets will cost $12.50 by 2030. 

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times,

A federal appeals court will hear arguments on a high-stakes case that could determine whether hundreds of thousands of people will lose their ability to work and remain in the United States.

On Oct. 10, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will revisit the case challenging Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which since 2012 has shielded more than 830,000 people who came to the United States illegally as children from deportation and provided them with renewable work permits.

The prolonged legal battle over the fate of DACA, which was promulgated through executive action by President Barack Obama and never approved by Congress, dated back to 2018 when Texas and eight other Republican-led states filed a lawsuit, arguing that the Obama administration had overstepped its authority to create an immigration program without congressional consent.

In July 2021, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen ruled in favor of the states, declaring DACA unlawful. However, he stopped short of terminating the program, saying that “hundreds of thousands of individual DACA recipients, along with their employers, states and loved ones, have come to rely on the DACA program.”

As part of Hanen’s ruling, federal immigration officials could continue processing DACA renewals, but they are barred from accepting first-time applications.

The Biden administration appealed the decision, and in October 2022, the Fifth Circuit agreed with Hanen that Obama’s 2012 memo creating DACA was unlawful.

Still, it allowed current DACA recipients to continue renewing their status and sent the case back to the district court to assess the impact of a Biden administration policy that incorporated DACA into the federal regulations.

Shortly thereafter, Hanen ruled against the 2022 DACA regulation, but again fell short of ordering an immediate end to the program. The federal government has since appealed, and the case is now once again before the Fifth Circuit.

It is unlikely the three-judge panel will issue a ruling immediately following the October 10 oral arguments. A decision could take weeks or even months, and any outcome is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If that happens, it would be the second time in four years that the legality of DACA is heard by the nation’s highest court.

In June 2020, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 to preserve DACA, finding that President Donald Trump’s administration had acted arbitrarily in his efforts to terminate the program.

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), a nonprofit legal group representing DACA recipients in the case, expects the Supreme Court to take up the case during its October 2025 term.

However, if the Fifth Circuit issues a ruling sooner, the case could be heard as early as the current term, with a decision by June 2025.

“It’s important to note that even if the Fifth Circuit rules DACA is unlawful, it won’t necessarily order an immediate end to DACA, but could permit current recipients to continue to renew,” MALDEF said on its website.

According to the latest data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), more than 535,000 people in the United States have active DACA status as of June. Most recipients are between the ages of 31 and 40.

The vast majority of DACA recipients are from Mexico, with around 81 percent (433,840) born there. El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Peru round out the top five countries of origin.

DACA beneficiaries are spread across the United States but are heavily concentrated in states that are traditional immigrant destinations. California (150,090) and Texas (89,360) together account for 44 percent of all DACA recipients, followed by Illinois (28,330), New York (21,250), and Florida (21,170). These top five states have remained unchanged since 2017.

At the local level, the Los Angeles metropolitan area has the largest concentration of DACA recipients, with over 10 percent living there. Other major metroplexes, such as New York, Dallas, Houston, and Chicago, each host around 30,000 DACA participants.

While DACA protects recipients from deportation and provides work authorization, it does not offer a pathway to permanent residency or U.S. citizenship. According to the USCIS, DACA is not a lawful immigration status but rather classifies recipients as low-priority for removal.

“Deferred action is a form of prosecutorial discretion that does not confer lawful permanent resident status or a path to citizenship,” the USCIS said on its website. “Only Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights.”