BNA reports.  A snippet:

If the Supreme Court allows the lower court decision in Bluman to stand, lower courts and legislatures would conclude that the high court “did not truly mean” what it said in Citizens United, the challengers said. Such a result would mean that bans on independent campaign expenditures “can survive strict scrutiny, and are not off-limits” due to the First Amendment.

Attorney Postman told BNA in a Sept. 6 e-mail that the lower court in Bluman recognized his clients have a First Amendment right to engage in political speech, but held that this right “was trumped by the government’s interest in preventing voters from being influenced by the speech of non-citizens who might have ‘foreign’ loyalties.” He added: “That really is a remarkable holding, which would mean that any resident alien in the U.S., no matter how long they have lived here, could be banned from virtually any form of political speech.”