The article's title gives me the cognitive dissonance. Glad it was changed for HN. To add my own interpretation, "US court appears to legalizes X and technicall

The article's title gives me the cognitive dissonance. Glad it was changed for HN. To add my own interpretation, "US court appears to legalizes X and technically prohibits it" -- what is this "it" the court prohibits, and why do I want to assume the title's subject, which doesn't make sense at all. You don't "legalize X and technically prohibit X". Was the originally intended title truncated somehow?