Having to follow the law, as written, as per his oath of office, must be heartbreaking for this good man.
Remember when George Wallace stood in front of that school doorway some 40 years ago? He dared the federal government to do something about it, based on wrong reasoning. I would expect Jeb Bush to dare the Federal Government to do the something, based on right reasoning.
Ultimately, there needs to be some clarification as to whether laws are supposed to apply to facts as they exist, or as a judge claims the facts to be. To be sure, judges should be given great defference in their factual findings, but if a government worker knows that the judge's factual basis for a ruling is just plain wrong, should he "pretend" that the factual basis is correct, or should he act upon what he knows and face the consequences?
I would posit that if the law says that if an action may only be performed if certain conditions apply, and those conditons do not in fact apply, then the action is not legal even if a judge can be wrongly pursuaded that the conditions apply. Although from a legal standpoint proving the judge wrong may be difficult, a judge's declaration that the sky is purple does not make it so.