Kind-of. If you open the first document attached to the page it is the "order" , essentially the "ruling".

Page 4 really outlines the crux of it all:

“Granting or denying a temporary injunction is a discretionary act arising from a court’s equitable powers.” May v. R.A. Yancey Lumber Corp., 297 Va. 1, 18 (2019). It is an “extraordinary remedy” dependent on the “nature and circumstances” of an individual case. Levisa Coal Co. v. Consolidation Coal Co., 276 Va. 44, 60 (2008). As a threshold requirement, a court may issue a preliminary injunction only if it first determines that the movant will more likely than not suffer irreparable harm without the preliminary injunction. Cartograf USA, Inc. v. Comerica Bank, 85 Va. App. 1, 19 (2025). If that irreparable-harm threshold is met, the court must then determine whether three additional factors support issuance of the injunction: (1) the movant has asserted a legally viable claim based on credible facts that will more likely than not succeed on the merits; (2) the balance of hardships favors granting the preliminary injunction; and (3) the public interest, if any, supports issuance of a preliminary injunction. Id. Separately, Virginia law provides that no temporary injunction shall be awarded unless the court is satisfied of the plaintiff's equity. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-628.

So basically step one is they have to show "irreparable-harm", and judge agreed that they do, therefore, go to step two, check these three specific things per each argument.

The Republicans had four key arguments:

First, plaintiffs claim the creation of the 2026 maps was unlawful because the legislature lacked the authority to engage in redistricting prior to the enactment of the amendment. (Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition at 6-8). Second, Plaintiffs allege the creation of the 2026 maps exceeds the legislature’s limited authority under the amendment to “modify” districts. (Id. at 8). Third, they argue that the amendment, as passed, continues to require compactness. (Id. at 8-18). Finally, Plaintiffs claim that the resulting districts fail to comply with that compactness requirement. (Id.).

I will save pasting the other giant paragraphs that went into it, but basically they get told "no." On all 4 claims. The maps were made legally, they followed the state constitution, and they were drawn with the correct restrictions.

The Republicans also tried to argue that the compactness was part of the state constitution 2020 amendment, even though there was specifically a section on mid-decade redistricting that threw out most all rules in this exact scenario. The amendment was written the the word "except" in it, and they were arguing the except applied to the words before it, not after. The court said that is absolutely absurd and not how words work.

In the end, the judge said:

Many a tradition and law has been laid down in the advancement of a national quest for political power, and the winds that will blow cannot yet be known. Nonetheless, this Court knows its role is clear. It is not to assess the wisdom of public policy nor to engage in policy making from the bench. Instead, it is to decide if those with whom we have entrusted power have exercised that power in conformance with their constitutional mandate. On this question, the Court’s answer is in the affirmative. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. It is so ORDERED.

Saying, it is his job to rule on following law, not make policy through rulings, and the democrats followed the law.

So now, the Republicans can appeal it higher (not enough time to matter), or they need to refile with different reasons (but they already threw all the spaghetti at the wall and nothing stuck).