"We hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay."

see, this is a different argument, and i think it speaks to the incoherency of the order in the first place. even so, i'm a little surprised that they took the approach of arguing that the illegality of the order overpowered the separation of powers; the exact opposite would have happened in canada. and, we're supposed to have the more powerful judiciary....

let's consider the possibility that the court would have allowed the ban to come back into force. it would have been appealed, for precedent if nothing else. but, by the time the appeal would have been heard, the ban would be over. what happens then? do the groups drop the appeal?

see, it is for this reason that i would have argued it more likely that the courts would step back and let the executive implement it's power. but, it seems to rather be arguing that the entire thing is a waste of time. and, i must again point to this zealous use of power by the judiciary as a bit of an ominous problem. they're vetoing an executive order, here...

...but, now, the problem has been shifted to the administration: what is the point of appealing a gag on an order that is going to run out before the appeal is finished? and, if that happens, the only logic towards reapplying the ban is that they were incompetent at resolving the issues the ban was put in place to resolve.