Decision Scorecard: Who Came Out on Top in the Travel Ban Ruling

— -- The headlines out of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling on President Donald Trump's controversial travel ban immediately focused on the decision to allow a temporary restraining order on refugees and citizens of seven predominately Muslim nations to remain in place.

Justice Department attorneys defended the executive order while lawyers from the states of Minnesota and Washington sought to maintain the restraining order and allow travel for these individuals to continue.

The court's decision was more complex than a simple "yes" or "no." The preliminary ruling, which will not be the final word on the order, laid out which side was successful in arguing each point of contention.

Here's a scorecard, point by point, examining the winners in Thursday's decision:

Motion for Stay Denied

States Have Standing (At Least Preliminarily)

Judicial Branch Retains Authority to Adjudicate Constitutional Challenges to Executive Actions

DOJ Did Not Show Likelihood of Success on Appeal

Judges Cannot Rely on the Government’s Contention That the Executive Order No Longer Applies to Lawful Permanent Residents

Judges Decline to Modify the Scope of the Temporary Restraining Order

It Is Not the Court’s Role to Try to Rewrite the Executive Order

States’ Claims of Discriminatory Intent to Disfavor Muslims Present Significant Constitutional Questions

DOJ Fails to Show a Stay is Necessary to Avoid Irreparable Injury

DOJ Points to No Evidence That Any Alien From the 7 Countries Has Committed a Terror Attack in the U.S.

Government Claims of Institutional Injury by Erosion of Separation of Powers are Not Irreparable

States Have Presented Ample Evidence of Harm if the Executive Order Was Reinstated, Even Temporarily

Aspects of the Public Interest Favor Both Sides