@JamesB ... Re: Chilling
Sorry but I think you need to spend more time around lawyers and in the courts. Not that I would recommend it but its an eye opener about how messed up things can get.
You have a couple of issues.
Yes you are correct, the plaintiff must show actual damages incurred by the ban in order to have standing. That's going to be a difficult one.
Then you have the issue of jurisdiction. You're going to have to do some reading on that one. Does a Federal Judge who's jurisdiction is limited to a district of federal court have the right to impose an order that extends outside of his jurisdiction?
The current case is the TRO issued by a judge in Washington State. (Home of Amazon)
The judge didn't have to justify his reasoning and provide a written opinion based on law. His only comments were that it was a religious based ban and that the plaintiffs should win their cases. (This is why the DoJ lawyers should win the appeal. ) The appellate court will have to issue a written statement. If the DoJ lose, it will go to SCOTUS. If they win... most likely it wont. (Per news analysts and lawyers)
You then talk about the 1965 law which modifies the 1952 law which gives Trump the power to sigh the ban in the first place. You need to spend more time because Trump has the power to impose a time limited ban if there's an issue such as national security.
This is where it gets fun.
The courts should provide more leeway to the POTUS based on such a claim. However the DoJ would have to show that there was justification. They can, simply by pointing out Obama's actions on these same 7 countries in 2015.
Legally, Trump will win.
IMHO, the execution... not good.
You should read Alan Dershowitz's comments on this. A bleeding heart liberal, yet an honest lawyer.
Judges are not infallible. They don't know everything in the law and often make mistakes that you have to live with. Its not uncommon to have to go thru the appeals process which can take a year or two before their ruling is overturned.