I have not read the opinion but it does seem like a somewhat odd case.
There's an old maxim that every court has jurisdiction to determine it's own jurisdiction. Normally a court decides jurisdictional issues before going to trial, however. There's little point in having a trial if the court already knows it can't order the relief sought by the plaintiff.
Here's a blurb from the NY Times:
>>>Judge Hinkle found that the . . . suspension . . . violated the prosecutor’s free speech rights. . . . The governor also cited other justifications for the suspension that do not violate the First Amendment, but do violate the Florida Constitution, . . .
The judge found, however, that he could not order Mr. Warren’s reinstatement, because it was a matter of state law and not federal law.
The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, he wrote, “prohibits a federal court from awarding declaratory or injunctive relief of the kind at issue against a state official based only on a violation of state law.”<<<
A federal judge ruled that the Florida governor violated state law when he ousted Tampa’s top prosecutor — but that the court lacked the authority to reinstate him.
Based on this I think the judge said that DeSantis gave several justifications for the suspension, at least one of which violated the prosecutor's 1st Amendment rights. This justification was apparently discarded (in a sense) by the judge on Constitutional grounds, leaving only justifications that are issues of state law.
What strikes me as odd is that the purpose of a trial is to determine facts. It appears to me that the judge basically said that the plaintiff won on the merits across the board (i.e. the plaintiff proved the facts alleged in the complaint), but he (the judge) couldn't order relief due the the 11th amendment.
I'm sure there's more to it, but it seems as if the judge could have determined before the trial that the outcome of the trial would be legally moot no matter what the facts were.
I'd have to read the entire opinion to see what's actually going on. I'll admit, I'm not especially anxious to do so.
There's an old joke that trying to become a partner in a law firm is like a pie eating contest where the prize is more pie. I've been eating heaps of pie every day for years now and there times when more pie just doesn't sound very good.