Court order here. (via Sam Levine).
The state argued this was a new law with some different provisions and so not covered by the existing injunction. The court found the provisions were substantially similar. It also noted: “If the court accepted defendants’ argument, it would mean that a legislative body could evade an injunction simply by reenacting an identical law and giving it a new number.”
The existing case is up on appeal, and so this is not over.