He just wanted the temporary restraining order lifted.
So now the travel ban cannot be put into effect until somewhere a decision is reached on the questions whether it is illegal or unconstitutional.
Last night on MSNBC every constitutional law professor asked opined it is neither, under current law and precedent.
Romero of the ACLU and at least one other insisted it is unconstitutional, apparently looking for something new, as I have written earlier.
It looks like they rest their hopes on the establishment clause and the equal protection clause to effectively strike down the broad powers of the president in current law - the first to disallow discrimination by religion (the "Muslim ban" claim) and the second to disallow discrimination by nation, religion, or other suspect categorization.
One newsie suggested the president expects to win at least 5 to 3 in the Supreme Court if the issue gets there before Gorsuch, counting on 4 Republicans and at least one Democrat - an expectation he, at least, thought reasonable.
But others did not think the matter would get there before Gorsuch, anyway.
BTW, the 3 judge panel denied the claim of unreviewability, insisting the president's judgment on the question whether the ban served the interests of the United States, in this case regarding national security, was reviewable under the minimal standard of reasonableness.
The court did not rule on the questions of legality or constitutionality.