One thing that somebody else pointed out is that this law has no severability clause. A law usually has this clause, which essentially says that the invalidation of one part of it does not invalidate the whole law. So technically, by invalidating a part of it, she has invalidated the whole law or prevented it from being enforced until such time as the issue is resolved legally.
Unfortunately, there have been recent instances of a law without a severability clause being permitted to remain in effect even after a part of it has been invalidated, but I’m not sure this has been challenged.
We’re living in a lawless time.
The rest of it will stay in effect without the severability clause,
because some judge knows better than the law.