See, but you said "determined by judges".  The law is the law.  Interpreted by judges, not determined.  To read into a law more than what is written, as towards intent, is supposition to me.  Da judge was supposed to compare what the EO said as written, then compare w/ the current statute, as written.  He didn't do that.  He brought in outside language in the form of hearsay and added that to the mix.  That is not judging.  It is activism.  Then he used conjecture to rule that even though a harm did not occur to anyone, U.S. citizen or no, because (in his opinion) it possibly COULD that that rose to a level of standing.  At least to him.  Surely, you can agree.  Therefore, his "ruling" was faulty to begin with.  Probably politically driven.  Oops!  Conjecture your honor!