No, a court order is law. Legislatures pass laws. Courts apply laws to cases. Both actions ARE the law. The law has no way of functioning without the actions of both. Both are absolutely necessary in our Constitutional system in order for the rule of law to exist. Those of us who support strong judicial restraint and court rulings of a narrow and limited scope must still admit that those restrained judicial rulings are still necessary in order for the law to function properly. In an ideal world, all three branches of governments serve crucial roles that insure the rule of law. The law cannot work without courts because we need them to make the law binding to specific parties. Taking that action to make a statute binding IS LAW. If you violate it you can suffer specific, identifiable and known legal consequences. THAT'S LAW.
You're right that a court order is law, much as a generally applicable law passed by the legislature is law, but I would argue that there's at least one important case in which this simple but correct analysis is inapplicable: When the court order clashes with the actions of a co-equal branch of the government. In this case, we have what is known as a "constitutional crisis," or at least a constitutional clash, because the 2 braches can each claim the authority of law.
In such a case, the Judiciary does not have superior authority to tell the Executive not to act; and when the Executive does act against a court order, it is answerable only to the people, via devices such as elections or impeachment.
For example, imiagine that a Federal court enjoined the Executive against taking actions that the Executive deemed necessary to protect us against terrorists. The
Executive has a fundamental and independednt grant of authority in the US constitution to take actions related to national security, and those actions cannot be deemed illigal simply because they are contrary to a court order. If the people get mas about it they can impeach President Bush.
In Florida, the Florida Constitution gives the State - and Jeb Bush as head of the Executive branch - the power to take law enforcement action to protect its citizen from getting killed. If a judge like Greer enjoins the state of Florida - acting under the authority of the Florida Constitution and of more specific statutes granting that authority to Department of Protective Services - from protecting a woman from getting killed, then it is not illegal for Jeb Bush send state law enforcement to save Terri even when such action is contrary to the judge's order. It would be a political clash, and the people of the state of Florida would have to decide what to do about it.
Please get your facts straight:
Legislatures pass laws.
A court order is a judgement.
Taking that action to make a statute binding is enforcement.
They are three entirely different functions.
A judgement without law is not legal.
Enforcement without law and judgement has no legality or justice.
A judgement without law has no entitlement to enforcement.
A judgement without enforcement has no effect.
And then there are laws that are never or generally not enforced, like jurisdictions where you are supposed to have someone walk in front of your car ringing a cowbell or U.S. immigration laws. But they can make sure someone starves to death.