Crap you beat me
Since as the judge admits this is going to cost about 200 million over a decade, the treasury department should respond that they will work on implementing such features once congress budgets the funds for doing so.
The courts have ruled in the past that congress can pull funding when they disagree with the president. They can do the same when they disagree with the Judiciary. Adding 5% to the treasury's cost of printing money is obviously an unfunded mandate.
Congress creates such mandates on a regular basis, but the executive branch doesn't have to implement them unless they are funded.
The Judge isn't saying that this is a constitutional right of blind people, he's saying it's required by existing legislation, which means he's claiming that congress implemented an unfunded mandate to do this.
The treasury department should politely tell the Judge that even if his interpretation of the law is correct, it's up to congress to provide the fund to make it happen, and then ignore the judge's ruling until congress acts.