Replies

1) So what does this mean for the California Case?

Specifically, probably nothing. Even if Judge Carter is made aware of the decision, it is not binding on him. However, as a general matter, this opinion is focused on the same issues that Judge Carter focused on in the hearing (standing, political question). And, the cases cited include Supreme Court cases on the issue (which are binding on the California court). So, there's a chance that Judge Carter's opinion will read similarly.

2) Are any of Orly's plaintiff's significantly different? Does any of hers have actual orders that haven't been rescinded?

Orly has one active-duty plaintiff, but was unable to tell Judge Carter whether he has any pending orders from Obama or whether he would defy those orders if issued. So, I don't think that the active-duty plaintiff will be considered materially different from the Kerchner military plaintiffs. Orly also has Keyes - a presidential candidate. At the hearing, Judge Carter seemed disinclined to simply dismiss Keyes as a "fringe" candidate, referring to the important value that third-party candidates bring to the political process. At the same time, Judge Carter seemed troubled by Orly's apparent inability to identify a particular injury suffered by Keyes. Although Orly cited to the Senate race, that race is not part of this complaint or action, so Judge Carter will not be able to rely on that alleged injury. So, I think there's a chance that Judge Carter may say that a candidate, even a third-party candidate with little realistic chance of winning, has standing - IF he can prove particularized injury. I also think that Judge Carter will find that Amb. Keyes failed to do that.