But it does say that, just a different form of plain English.Plain English would be:
"Guy has a point and there's some constitutional authority and precedence behind it, but the case should be decided in Texas where it took place, not in DC."
POTUS, via EO, determined that the AEA (the law) would apply to illegal migrant Venezuelans over 14 and identified as being part of TDA. The AEA is almost completely unencumbered by judicial review unless making a habeas appeal, which must be adjudicated where the removed is being detained. So the questions, as I see them, are; 1) was the law legally used? Yes. 2) was the alien enemy identified? Yes, by the EO. 3) was there an error in the identity of the alien enemy? Doesn't seem to be, but if the detainee makes a challenge it would be verified by a court with jurisdiction at the incarceration location. That didn't happen because of judge shopping.