You sidestepped - the sheriff is the arbiter of what is a constitutional mandate, and swore an oath to uphold the constitution.
arbiter of what is a constitutional mandate for his county.
That's a valid point. But the Sheriff is only arbiter as to whether or not he will enforce the law. I assume the Barber was charged by state or local police instead of the sheriff. Which made the Sheriff irrelevant except to the extent his decision influenced the court.
I maintain that the sheriff's decision shouldn't play an out sized role in the court decision. There were other factors at play in the Sheriff's decision, including the militia.
The court should consider the law and whether a real threat existed. And I think there is more than sufficient evidence that the threat is real, and that the Governor was within her legislated powers to act.
The judge is legislating from the bench by substituting his own opinion for those of the Medical professionals and the Governor.