I’ve read the order. While the plaintiffs made a variety of constitutional and statutory claims, the order focuses solely on their First Amendment argument. The decision relies very heavily on statements made by Trump and his principal surrogates during the campaign and shortly thereafter to show that the primary purpose of the new travel ban is not “secular.”
Does it please me to see Trump, Giuliani, Miller, and the rest being legally skewered by their own irresponsible public statements? Yes, indeed, it does. That said, I have some legal concerns about the weight that was placed on comments made during the campaign. I think Trump has a decent argument that the decision drifted too far away from the actual text of the order, and that an appellate court should reach a different conclusion.
Which is just another way of saying that the Trump campaign should be taken neither seriously nor literally by the judicial system.