Again, the judge made no legal argument or justification for the TRO. In his opinion, he states that the TRO is based on his belief that the plaintiffs will prevail at trial. The closest he came to making a legal case was in oral arguments where he went off the rails and made the factually inaccurate point that Trump?s order wasn?t legal unless it was ?based in fact, as opposed to fiction,? explaining that no terrorist attacks were perpetrated by people from the seven named countries.
Again, "it is not necessary for the executive branch to demonstrate that a policy it adopts prevents a harm that has already occurred. The executive branch has broad latitude in refugee and immigration policy for purposes of national security. The Department of Justice has rightly argued that judges do not have access to classified risk information as the president does; furthermore, foreign citizens abroad do not have Constitutional rights."
If a judge has no legal basis for issuing a TRO, it seems he is overstepping in issuing a TRO.