First, a disclaimer - I don't live in the US. However, I've looked quite a lot at this issue from my side of the pond. \n\nThe judge's decision, as noted elsewhere, has two distinct parts, when really it needed only one - the jurisprudential one. On a reading of the law restricting/banning ESC research, it is fairly watertight, and (jurisprudentially, not politically) it has been a bit of a mystery how the twelve lines which are in use ever got permission. The Presidential Order was only going to work if the right judges heard the inevitable challenges, because the problem (from the position of pro-ESC researchers) is actually the 1996 amendment. However, with so much for the Obama administration to do when it first came in, it is understandable that they chose not to have that fight through Congress and the Senate at that time. Hence my lack of surprise at the judge's decision.\n\nThe part of the decision that deals with competition for funding is bizarre, and one is left wondering what on earth the judge was thinking. Again pointed out elsewhere, the practical implication of this is that, every time an application for a research grant is turned down, it can be heard in a court! However, this part will be easily slapped down in a higher court.\n\nIt is, from my point of view, long past time that we find a way to keep religiously motivated crackpots from interfering in things that they have no business being in. In Europe, ESC research is held back by the conservative Catholic loons, in the USA it conservative loons of many religious opinions. All we can do is wait until the Far Eastern countries, not held back by this medieval claptrap, tell us what we can have.