By my read, this temporary injunction applies ONLY to the plaintiff states - Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon. It doesn’t stop it from being applied in the rest of the country.
I could be wrong, but I think this could be due to how the states’ suit is worded? As in, I think it’s worded as, “you can’t do that in our state,” and not, “you can’t do that full stop.”
From another site:
Attorneys general from 18 other states also sued over the order in federal court in Massachusetts.
Brown [AG filing the suit] noted his lawsuit is similar, but said he felt Washington should lead a separate case because of “specific and unique harms that are brought here.” He also said that “we have a very good set of judges in our bench here in Washington, so I feel like this is the right place.”
(My emphasis.)
So, a good first step, and while this should be struck down in its entirety, my reading is that this was a lawsuit with limited scope, and the injunction matches the limited scope.
Agreed. I thought it was important to highlight anyway because it’s a detail with a significant impact for a lot of people that hasn’t been highlighted in any of the media coverage I’ve seen.