"The government argued that not having the refugee and visa ban in place would cause the United States immediate harm, by increasing the risk of a terrorist attack. 

That argument has often inspired deference from judges; they don’t think it’s their job to weigh security risks. But the Ninth Circuit has rejected it.

The states in this case have argued that — from its origins as a campaign promise to ban “Muslims” from entering the US to President Trump’s promise, the day the executive order was signed, to make an exception to the refugee ban for “Middle Eastern Christians” — there’s a lot of evidence that this ban is discriminatory in a way that’s too blatant for the courts to ignore."

but, this isn't an argument. 

the precedent, from my understanding, and certainly in canada, is that the judges really don't think it's their job to weigh security risks, or interfere with executive orders of this nature. that's the norm that was always in place.

so, it's never ok for the judges to assume the role of the executive branch, except when they decide that it is because their actions are "discriminatory"?

i mean, everybody knows that the courts wouldn't rule this way on search and seizure rights, or even on freedom of assembly. why is discrimination more important than freedom of assembly?

vox probably has the right answer:

they really didn’t like the federal government’s contention that the executive order is beyond the scope of the courts to review at all.

right. of course.

this is a power struggle, no doubt informed by the judiciary buying into the media narrative about trump being an autocrat. and, keep in mind that conservatives and liberals both bought into this. i don't think pointing to reagan or bush appointees is some way out of a critical analysis.

i'm not arguing against the likelihood that the order is probably going to be declared unconstitutional, i'm just very surprised that this is being used as a reason to stop the ban, given that it normally wouldn't be (consider laws on wiretapping, or orders to clear public spaces - and canada has a process in the constitution for this situation). and, i have to again suggest that this is a political ruling, rather than a legal one - and that some attention should be drawn to this, even if you agree with it.