It’s literally all the internet wants to talk about today, but did the judge in Seattle overstep his legal boundaries, by striking down Donald Trump’s executive order on travel bans? Robert Barnes, one of the lawyers over at LawNewz.com says he did.

The Seattle decision overstepped the traditional boundaries of district court authority, especially when sister courts are ruling on the same issues. Both the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit warned against issuing a national order in just these kind of cases.

Unlike state courts, federal courts enjoy the possibility of national reach in their decision. Due to the risk of conflicting decisions within the courts, venue-shopping by litigants (note how the ACLU, CAIR and the Attorney Generals aren’t suing in any Trump states), and the interference with the executive branch of government in their daily duties, the Supreme Court established precedents — precedents being what constitutes “evidence” for lawyers about what the law says — to limit this problem from occurring.

Read Barnes’ entire argument with citations and legalese.