It is often the case that a judge will rule that something must be restored or maintained pending the outcome of an appeal. I got the impression the current ord

It is often the case that a judge will rule that something must be restored or maintained pending the outcome of an appeal. I got the impression the current order from the court was to not restrict access to the beach; the appeal might change that, but right now the law and its interpretation currently seems to be that he needs to allow access. Am I misinterpreting the situation? Regardless, the ethics of the thing are clear, to me. This is theft of a public resource. And, I would hope the courts would continue to agree; a billionaire can buy a lot of do-overs in the US legal system, but hopefully, he can't buy the result he wants.