Your premise was that the mention of NSF didn't mean that NSF was necessarily a party to this. The language makes it clear that NSF was cited as a party to this.

Your attempt to change the direction of the conversation has failed and we all know it. You appear to be claiming that a news story doesn't mean what it says, and that a preliminary injunction is not an injunction. That is puzzling.

Let me save you some time and effort. Now you will say that you went to law school so you know more than anyone else, and say something nasty about me, and then say that everything is still open to debate.