This ruling makes no sense. My mind makes the invalid phone number noise, "do-do-dooooooo", when I read it.
When I read about decisions like this, I often wonder if judges are purposefully making these nonsensical rulings so that the higher courts are forced to take the cases and make valid decisions. Though, I'm still undecided as to why this might be; perhaps the judge isn't up to the task of making a complicated ruling, some personal bias that favors one side of the law, or wishing to look good in front of the Feds in hopes that he or she can move up in the court system.
The part of the ruling this article is discussing isn't binding precedent, and doesn't affect the case. Even if it were overturned the court would still have found for the government.
When I read about decisions like this, I often wonder if judges are purposefully making these nonsensical rulings so that the higher courts are forced to take the cases and make valid decisions. Though, I'm still undecided as to why this might be; perhaps the judge isn't up to the task of making a complicated ruling, some personal bias that favors one side of the law, or wishing to look good in front of the Feds in hopes that he or she can move up in the court system.