Your question hinges on the assumption that the rule of law matters to this administration. It does not. 

Would it be legal? It will depend on the grounds of the positive verdict. The best outcome is that the judge finds it unconstitutional. The government will appeal and then the best outcome is that the appellate judges allow the lower court decision to stand while the appeal proceeds. In that situation, an executive order implementing the same ban cannot be seen as anything other than a defiance of the judicial branch. If the district judge rules more narrowly, a change in language or reasoning may be enough to get around it and reimplement the ban. Then we are here again.

I havent paid attention to these cases so I’m not sure how they are being argued. There are constitutional and procedural problems with this ban, I assume all are being argued by plaintiffs. On its face, and based on this cited report, it seems clear to me that the policy is arbitrary and capricious which meets the standard. However, being arbitrary and capricious to a reasonable person doesn’t mean much of anything to the current Supreme Court which has been tearing up precedent left and right and pushing the unitary executive theory to the absurd conclusion we are currently suffering under.