"clears any moral/ethical hurdles for individuals who want to assist in that manner." This is the portion of your statement I disagree with. It might mean that FedGov isn't going to prosecute them, but relying of FedGov to be our definition of what is moral/ethical is quite dangerous IMO.
I'm talking about the ethical obligation of a judge or public official to comply with the law. It simply is not unethical for a judge to do something that is expressly permitted by a federal EO, unless that EO has been challenged and stayed pending final resolution. And that has not happened here.
As far as this issue goes, it looks to me like current federal law prohibits the assistance of illegals. Prez O has made it clear that his administration will not prosecute anyone that violates that law and as such his administration is issuing these pamphlets (or whatever they are) that are essentially instructing the law breakers on how to continue breaking the law.
As I pointed out, the President does have the legal discretion, under laws passed by Congress, to give waivers to people who are here illegally. The scope of that power is currently under challenge. I'd also say that "giving assistance" may not have the meaning to which you are ascribing it. Taking it literally, that should theoretically prohibit providing, even
selling food or water to illegals. It would criminalize a doctor who provided emergency medical care to anyone here illegally as well. So I don't think that means what you think it means.
I think the better argument is that the statute makes it illegal to assist someone who is trying to get or stay in this country illegally, in the sense of transporting them, concealing them secretly, etc.. I do not believe it was meant to preclude all actions of any kind that benefit someone who is here illegally.
I may be wrong about that, but again the point is whether a judge who follows federal guidance and an unclear law is acting unethically. I just don't believe that do be the case.