For the non-lawyers: as the article indicates (but doesn’t really explain), this is a ruling on a request for temporary relief (called a “preliminary injunction”). This is not a final judgment. It can (and presumably will) also be subject to appeal. Nothing remotely final about this. The judge has simply said: “CA, you can go ahead and enforce your law for now.”

Now, this does also mean the judge would quite likely ULTIMATELY rule in CA’s favor. But it is not a guarantee. And, as I said, then there’s appellate and Supreme Court review.

For reference, the 4-element test/standard for a preliminary injunction generally accepted in US courts is set out here:

“[G]enerally a plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief must satisfy a four-factor test: (1) that he or she is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims; (2) that he or she is likely to suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities between the parties support an injunction; and (4) the injunction is in the public interest.”

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/wom...