It is not necessarily the final say. DHS may turn around and challenge the ruling which may then be picked up by the Court of Appeals for further review. However, the Court of Appeals does not have to review the case and even if they did, they very well may agree with the ruling from the district court.
As with virtually all govt authority figures whose 'authoritah' gets constrained by pesky constitutional 'noise', they will adopt the minimal appearance of compliance that their dept lawyers estimate they can get away with. I wish I was kidding.
It's definitely a good ruling to have on the books but it could very well just end up being a checkbox matter to have a pretense of "suspicion" (ie "this person appeared nervous").
Depending on the jurisdiction of this district court the DHS might even decide that it doesn't apply outside that jurisdiction until a higher court rules on it.
Well, I'll be more tempted to fly into logan, at least for now…
But yeah, all hangs on what is "suspicion" (or what passes for it in practice), compared to say a targeted op or warrant provided by a court (even if its one of those secret courts like FISA).
