Yes. But there was no doubt that the Congress and President intended the Courts to exercise this new power in this case. Even if it was permitted and not mandated.
So it's not a breech of fidelity to the letter of the law, but it's definitely a big middle finger to the other two branches.
SD
There is existing law pertaining to the issuance of temporary injunctive relief, and standards that have to be met for such issuance. In the original draft of the Terri bill, Congress originally had language mandating temporary injunctive relief. This was later changed to allowing for temporary relief. Then, before the bill was passed, that paragraph was stripped out entirely. In debate on the Senate floor, Frist was asked if this meant that existing law governing temporary injunctive relief applied. Frist answered that it did.
Whittemore ruled that the Schindler's request met three out of the four standards required for injunctive relief, but that it failed do demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. This was based upon an analysis of the arguments filed by the Schindler's attorneys with reference to existing statute and case law.
The three judge panel only addresses the question of whether or not the original judge abused his discretion. They found that he did not. The full 11th Circuit upheld this, and the Supreme Court declined to review it.
It is possible that the Schindler's attorneys botched their filing. Or, perhaps they just didn't have much to work with. But reading the rulings, there is no question that these were conservative judicial decisions.
They were so gung ho on following the letter of the law. Wish they spent half as much energy following the letter of the law regarding illegal aliens as they did in murdering Terri Schindler. I refuse to tack her adultering husband's name to hers. He couldn't keep his marriage vow but by golly he sure made sure to keep an alledged vow to let her die, even if it meant killing her ahead of time.