It was a “real” legal ruling. I do wonder if the judge was having a little fun with it (actually, I kind of hope he was). But the description of the ruling, while needlessly indirect and confusing, was technically correct: the judge had originally denied review of a decision he made. He later decided to vacate (the denial of review) and to review it. The attorney who had originally won the case, and who didn’t want the prior decison to be reviewed, filed a motion that asked the judge to deny review (by vacating the order, that, itself, vacated the order that denied review). The judge declined to do so.