In their decision today, the CADC affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case.
—and given that plaintiffs raised no as-applied challenge with respect to Schrader in their district court briefs, we view this more specific claim as simply derivative of the broader claim that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to common-law misdemeanants as a class. And although plaintiffs referred to the specific circumstances of Schrader’s offense, they did so in the context of arguing that common-law misdemeanants as a class can be expected to share Schrader’s sympathetic characteristics.
In other words, the court rejected the arguments but said that because an as-applied
argument was not made at district, it could not now be made and rejected Gura's implied arguments.