A snippet from the opinion:

Second, whether true or false, and whether appealing or repugnant to the listener, Mr. Trump’s and his agents’ statements that the election is rigged, that voter fraud is being perpetrated en masse by “illegal aliens,” and that his supporters should go to polls and watch to ensure a fair election, without more, simply do not prove actual or likely intimidation. One can seriously question the wisdom of stirring up supporters about a controversial issue, encouraging them to go to a precinct that is not their own, and telling them to look for “voter fraud” without defining what it is, leaving individuals to their own devices to figure out how to go about that task.9 If the objective of observing is to detect persons voting more than once, the fact that the observer is in a precinct not their own, whether in the next town or the next state, only adds to the difficulty of recognizing a voter coming through the line more than once. And if the objective of observing, as strongly suggested by the candidate’s statements, is to detect persons attempting to vote who are ineligible because they are not citizens, it is beyond question that no one can tell a person’s citizenship based on what that person looks like or sounds like. But whatever the shortcomings of the Trump Campaign’s statements on this issue might be, simply arguing there is voter fraud and urging people to watch out for it is not, without more, sufficient to justify the extraordinary relief that an injunction constitutes.

The next question is whether plaintiffs take this to the 9th Circuit.