The confusion expressed in this thread is understandable.
This was easier for me to breeze through because I can see the procedural excuses and ignore them. If you don't have that wheel in your head, it's easy to be sidetracked.
The lower court's description of a correct 2d Am. analysis and application to the facts reads as well written and transparent to me. (Though I admit that a sliding scale intermediate scrutiny gives me heartburn.) I'd urge people to read for that and not trip over the rest.
