Apparently, Peter Di Rocco doesn't like being reminded that his sources often contain lies.

Among various factors, the judges strongly considered the following:  (1) Whether the executive order is likely to be ultimately upheld; and (2) Whether the executive order is effective in reducing terrorism.  The Trump administration argument on these two points was weak.  Peter Di Rocco's cites cases that are only vaguely related to these two points.  His argument is negligible.