The article being quoted in the tweets is this one on the blog Lawfare.
Having just read it, it's pretty good. I have a few issues with it however.
Straight up, fuck off. A speaker/writer instantly looses all credibility the second they spout the chic alt-right term 'virtue signaling'. A megalomaniac president throws childish tantrums on Twitter and directly questions the legitimacy of the judicial branch multiple times -- then his Justice Department attorneys use the flaccid defense of 'of course the courts can't exercise oversight in this matter' -- and somehow the courts laying the absolutely justified smackdown is 'justice signaling'? Fucking hell.
The quoted statute the tweets are referencing is this one:
The article and tweets quoting it seem to be missing (or ignoring) the fact that the court didn't really have to even consider it at this point. Congress can give any powers they want to give to the President, but that doesn't mean they are legal -- they still have to be constitutional and they still have to be executed for lawful/reasonable/non-discriminatory purposes.
At this early (pre-trial/pre-discovery) stage, the court just sidestepped on this particular issue by determining that there is enough preliminary evidence that the executive order is harmful to the States' interests and the public interest. That decision then justifies the continued effect of the temporary restraining order. The government attorneys completely punted on even trying to justify that the executive order was attempting to execute statutory powers for a reasonable purpose. When questioned on what the particular need was for immediately enacting the executive order and requesting an emergency stay of the TRO, they never answered -- they just gave the bullshit argument that the court can't review it, 'something something national security something separation of powers something'.
It did not matter to the court, when considering this early-stage motion to grant a stay to the TRO, that Congress enacted that statute -- the Government did not even seriously attempt to justify the need for the executive order in the first place. The ruling went to some length to call them out on that fact, and explicitly says that that government should put up or shut up:
The reason the ruling does not quote or go into depth on the statute is that the Government did not even attempt to justify the EO under the statute with evidence. It's not the court's job to submit evidence and defend the Government's actions -- that's the Justice Department attorney's job, and they didn't do it.
They said clucking, couselor/solicitor.