[SkyPilot]

Here is why there is confusion among folks (including myself) as to whether this is a defeat or a victory.

Read the intro to the thread, and then read the intro to the story.

They are 180 degrees out of phase:

Thread:

A U.S. federal court on Friday refused to put an emergency halt to Republican President Donald Trump's revised travel ban, saying lawyers from states opposed to the measure needed to file more extensive court papers.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Story

A federal judge in Wisconsin dealt the first legal blow to President Donald Trump's revised travel ban on Friday, barring enforcement of the policy to deny U.S. entry to the wife and child of a Syrian refugee already granted asylum in the United States.

Either Reuters changed the story, or it was posted wrong.

[SkyPilot]

Either there are two different court rulings, or there is massive confusion as to what this ruling says:

Look at this BBC article:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39241321

The ruling came from Seattle district judge James Robart, the same judge who had issued the order that in effect halted implementation of the first ban. Judge Robart said lawyers needed to file more extensive documentation. The new 90-day ban on citizens of six mostly Muslim nations is due to come into effect on Thursday but has sparked legal action in a number of states. Lawyers in Washington state had asked Judge Robart to extend his decision on the first ban to cover the second.The ruling came from Seattle district judge James Robart, the same judge who had issued the order that in effect halted implementation of the first ban. Judge Robart said lawyers needed to file more extensive documentation. But the judge cited procedural reasons for not doing so. He said a complaint or a motion would have to be filed before he could rule.

[arrogantsob]

My limited understanding is that the Wisconsin ruling applies to the plaintiff’s suit ONLY.