General Discussion

While the court did not rule on the underlying question of Trump's ability to enact widespread job cuts, the justices said they were likely to affirm that power.

However, the required assumption is a good-faith interpretation of the EO and derivative texts, that the cuts would be "consistent with applicable law."

If the plans promulgated and implemented aren't consistent with applicable law, then it's a completely different set of facts and circumstances and likely conclusions.

The ruling was narrow and needs that bit of explanation.

Think that assumption is likely misguided, but it needs to be made ("due process" and all--like it or not, same law for everybody). That just just means a truly trivial case was decided and and the real battle will be enjoined in the coming weeks. (But the judge may have gotten a minor point by just delaying everything for a while--the delay before any trial means later appeal means later appeal. Win time if nothing else, right?)