Yes, I agree that that was what the judge was saying.
Yes, I agree that the judge was making a Constitutional ruling and not a public health pronouncement.
The trouble is that in this particular matter the two are too closely intertwined to properly separate them for purposes of fostering the public good.
On the one hand, ruling as the judge did, Constitutional boundaries or lines-of-authority are clearly defined, and the public benefits from that.
However, if that proper ruling results in far more deaths and sickness than otherwise would have been necessary, then the public will ALSO have been harmed.
As to Fauci phukking-this-up, I tend to disagree... he's made a couple of bad judgment calls throughout all of this, but he appears to have done far more good than harm.