You can read the court’s opinion in Hispanic Leadership Fund v. Walsh at this link.

This ruling may be upheld if it is appealed, solely on grounds of the imminence of the election.  But on the question of likelihood of success on the merits, i cannot imagine this not getting overturned, either before or after the election.  Every other court which has examined this issue since Citizens United, including in the D.C. Circuit’s SpeechNow case, has come out the other way.

Here’s the meat of the discussion on likelihood of success:

Having carefully reviewed the arguments of counsel, the Court finds that, while Plaintiffs have set forth substantial arguments in favor of their underlying complaint, they have not established by the requisite evidence either that they in fact have a likelihood of prevailing on the merits or, as discussed in more detail below, that the harm that would follow if the injunction were not granted would be anything other than de minimis. See Conservative Party of N.Y. v. N.Y. Board of Elections, No. 10 Civ 6923, 2010 WL 4455867, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2010). Although Plaintiff HLF claims that its “major purpose” is making independent expenditures, and Plaintiff FNY claims that it seeks this relief to make “only” independent expenditures, the Court declines to accept these conclusory assertions without any factual record establishing their veracity. See Vermont Right to Life Comm., Inc., ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2012 WL 2370445, at *25 (declining “to accept FIPE as an independent-expenditure-only PAC without resort to the factual record”).