A judge is obligated to follow the law taking into account precedents and direction, especially from higher courts.
Perhaps "obligated" is too strong a word, because they can rule any way they choose. In this case, they could have ignored the US Supreme Court ruling, but since the ruling is recent, they should expect quick and decisive reversal by the US Supreme Court, along with a rebuke.
Alabama, of all places, ought to be familiar with what happens when the Alabama Supreme Court and the Federal Courts collide.
Recent? Well, I suppose we have to accept the recent land-grabbing decision by the SOOpreeem court using the "recent" rule.
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (taking it for private use is okay now)