Revisiting Sally Yates' decision

Today's ruling from the SCOTUS upholding large portions of President Trump's executive order 9-0 gives us grounds to revisit the earlier decision by then Acting Attorney General Sally Yates to order DOJ personnel not to defend any portion of President Trump's first executive order. In the comments to a post by Milan Markovic and elsewhere, I and others argued that Yates was free to disagree with the EO and to resign on that grounds, but that because of the legal arguments in support of at least parts of the EO her order to other DOJ personnel overstepped her proper role as lawyer. Given that even Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor upheld large portions of the second EO, and given the rationale in the court's per curiam opinion and in the now-vindicated dissent from the Fourth Circuit, isn't it clear that Yates' order went too far? [edited since posting] [also, as pointed out in the comments, the SCOTUS decision was only regarding injunctions below, so my use of the verb "upholding" was poor. as i discuss in the comments, there's still plenty of reason to conclude that Yates' order was improper.]