According to this, SCOTUS did not rule as widely reported. SCOTUS agreed the fed position is highly questionable but that the legal standard that the feds are in violation of federal law and the US Constitution is not met. I have not found why it falls short or what is lacking or why it fails to met the legal standard. Paxton says it's not done and the legal issue continues to move forward. What actually happened? The feds pushed to illegally allow invasion. Texas obtained an injunction, halting the flow of the invaders. The feds took them to court and SCOTUS ruled, as filed, Texas did not meet the legal standard to uphold the injunction. SCOTUS DID NOT RULE THE FEDS MAY TAKE DOWN THE BARBED WIRE. This is a subtle difference which means everything. The fallout of ending the injunction is that the feds may continue but SCOTUS absolutely did not provide blessing to the illegal actions of the feds. To the contrary, SCOTUS agrees what the feds are doing is highly questionable. What this really means is the legal battle will continue and the courts will continue to hear the merits of the case. Of course, this doesn't change the real world side effect and criminal behavior of the feds, but this is factually a completely different ruling than what is widely reported. Feel free to add any additional information you have on the details. Ref: https://poal.co/s/AskPoal/691892