i mean, what the court is trying to do is...

the legislation explicitly states this is an executive level decision. rather than try and discuss the executive precedents, the ruling relies on judicial precedents. that's just wrong.

the executive decision may, in the end, defer to the judicial precedents, but the judiciary can't assume the role of executive government and just do it.

it can order that the executive do it, yes.

it can't do itself, though.