There was no "ruling" in the matter referenced by wronger. The judge issued a judicial opinion that there was "reasonable cause to believe" that some provisions of the procedure might be unconsitutional when he remanded the case back to a lower court.

In actuality, all that happened is that the judge for an appeals court declined to hear the appeal of the lower court decision, but ordered the lower court to "think again" and explain their decision.

As the "opinion" was stated by the judge, the lower court may rehear the case and provide better rationale for their previous decision, or may come to a different decision, after which the judge may or may not consider a new appeal or a resubmission of the same one. It is only after the appeal has been accepted for trial/hearings that the higher court is permitted to make a "ruling."

Obvously neither wronger nor his leader-hatemongers have much understanding about the workings of US courts - but that's expected here.

John