Yeah, the idiot judge based his ruling, in part, on the notion that the states who are party to the lawsuit would “likely suffer irreparable harm”. Well, so what? Since when is a US President’s foreign policy to be held hostage by how individual states see a foreign policy issue, and since when do federal courts get to usurp and control the foreign policy of the US?
Also, with respect to foreign policy decisions, it seems to me that any given state could claim that any particular foreign policy decision, on immigration or otherwise, would or could cause them harm of one form or other. This would constitute a very nebulous and arbitrary argument. If this notion is allowed to stand, the President would be rendered completely powerless to defend the nation. This ruling MUST be reversed, post haste.
They have a weird definition of a state suffering irreparable harms. Seriously, they consider a professor missing his teaching dates to be state/national irreparable harm.
That is ridiculous and doesn’t begin to compare with national security interests.