You are taking the sentence out of context and I'm not sure it would be worth the downvotes to provide it, but sure, why not.
People seem to be assuming (probably because of the poor media coverage and inherent bias) that the ACLU has obtained an injunction on the order preventing entry into in the US by foreign nationals from the countries listed.
That really doesn't seem to be the case. Because the citizens of those nations have no standing in her court. For example, the ACLU can not sue in federal court on behalf of Jane Doe of Tehran with whom the US has no treaty obligation who was going to travel to the US next month.
She issued an injunction on behalf of a limited class of people (specifically those already in the US being detained with legal visas, etc) who do have standing in her court because they are are suffering (what she has decided to be irreparable) harm as a result of the order.
So, I hope that distinction is now clear, and also wish you a safe return from your limb.
People seem to be assuming (probably because of the poor media coverage and inherent bias) that the ACLU has obtained an injunction on the order preventing entry into in the US by foreign nationals from the countries listed.
That really doesn't seem to be the case. Because the citizens of those nations have no standing in her court. For example, the ACLU can not sue in federal court on behalf of Jane Doe of Tehran with whom the US has no treaty obligation who was going to travel to the US next month.
She issued an injunction on behalf of a limited class of people (specifically those already in the US being detained with legal visas, etc) who do have standing in her court because they are are suffering (what she has decided to be irreparable) harm as a result of the order.
So, I hope that distinction is now clear, and also wish you a safe return from your limb.