I simply cannot understand the logic behind the granting of the stay. Please explain it to me.

Imagine someone is stealing from you on a daily basis. You take them to court and the court finds that yes, he is stealing from you but then declares that he can keep stealing from you until the Supreme court rules on it. How does that make ANY sense? How is that justice?

The judges on the 3rd circuit court must have had some reasoning behind their decision. Could someone who is more erudite than I explain what these judges were thinking?