No he doesn't. His reasoning is circular - he assumes that which he is supposed to prove through trial. He assumes that he can rest the case on the case heard in the state trial court - which he is expressly directed not to do in the legislation.
If this judge does not want to follow the law laid out by the Congress, then he should have declined to hear the case and passed it on to someone else.
The judge didn't try the case. He merely held a hearing on granting injunctive relief. And he can only use what is laid before him WHEN CONSIDERING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. The relief comes first; the trial comes second. Again, I think Congress blew it.