Does anyone have a link to the actual decision? Upon rereading, the article certainly makes it seem as though the crux of the ruling was around a denial of inte

Does anyone have a link to the actual decision? Upon rereading, the article certainly makes it seem as though the crux of the ruling was around a denial of international air travel is a deprivation of liberty, but were I the appealing attorney, that would be fantastic news. That's a major change in the permissiveness of the word liberty, and would open up infinite slippery slope arguments. I'd bet on that logic failing on appeal. However, if the decision relies on other grounds (either solely or in addition to), then I doubt it is overturned. While the Reuters article presents this as legally binding, if the quotes occurred in dicta (discussion of the facts and implications of the case that are not legally binding, as they are not grounded in case or black letter law), then it's not binding, and the ruling can be upheld without addressing the redefinition of liberty.