I think it makes perfect sense to say that states do not experience irreversible harm from the order, but the individuals suing do. A TRO has. very high bar, as

I think it makes perfect sense to say that states do not experience irreversible harm from the order, but the individuals suing do. A TRO has. very high bar, as you essentially have to prove—without a trial!—not only that you will probably win at trial, but also that there is a harm that the remedies available at trial fundamentally cannot fully address that you are experiencing from the wrong at issue, and when you’ve established those things you’ve only met 2 of the 4 requirements for getting a TRO. So, even with the same facts (but for the plaintiff's situation) and legal question ultimately at issue, and even if judges view the law and facts identically, its not at all surprising that differently situated plaintiffs get different results at the TRO stage.