I just finished reading that decision. That's was transparent judicial elasticism at its finest. What a crock of crap. I'm not expressing an opinion on the administration's policy or how it was implemented. It does look like Trump's legal team vomited on itself, but that fact shouldn't permit the Court from making up crap just to take advantage of its own self-interest (and I'm not even saying that it is a politically-motivated decision).
The court was deciding a motion to reinstate the ban. They went out of their way to say that the States' marginal standing claim has merit "at this stage" of the proceeding. The logic they used to support standing to argue for the citizens of seven foreign countries is stupid. They say that Washington and Minnesota can argue on behalf of their State University faculty and students and their families affected by the ban. Okay, fine, but then the court could have/should have restored the ban to only State University students and faculty -- not EVERYONE. Later, they say that the 5th amendment protects "individuals" even who don't reside here and aren't green card holders, but who hold visas. How then does that apply to Syrian refugees who have no such status. Huh? How does that follow?
They went out of their way to say that their decision is only really in effect until the appeal of the district court order is decided and "at this stage" it appears that the government doesn't have a winnable case on the merits. The court's reasoning and logic was flimsy and disengenuous at best. It seems pretty clear that they don't care because their self-interest had to be to get the spotlight off of them for the time being.
Checks and balances are one thing (and one thing I was hopeful for no matter who won the election in November) but one branch can't make s**t up just to exercise restraint on another. That's abuse and it's lame and it is especially lame when courts do it.