PER CURIAM. In 2024, the Ohio legislature passed a law that banned foreign nationals from contributing to candidates in state elections and from spending money to support or oppose state ballot initiatives. See Ohio Rev. Code § 3517.121. The plaintiffs here brought this suit, claiming on various grounds that the law violates the constitutional rights of lawful permanent residents. Thereafter the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, which the district court granted on the ground that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on one of their First Amendment claims. That injunction barred enforcement of the law against not only lawful permanent residents, but also against any individual who is a “foreign national.” The Ohio Attorney General appealed and moved for a stay of the district court’s injunction. After briefing on the stay motion, a divided panel granted the state’s motion in a published opinion that (including the dissent) ran some 24 pages. See OPAWL v. Yost, 118 F.4th 770 (6th Cir. 2024). In that opinion, the court held that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their claim that the First Amendment did not permit states to ban political expenditures and contributions by lawful permanent residents. See id. at 775–76. The parties and an amicus then filed merits briefing in this preliminary-injunction appeal. We have ourselves now carefully reviewed all the relevant materials, including the relevant cases. For substantially the reasons stated in the stay panel’s majority opinion, two of us conclude that Ohio is likely to prevail on the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims. See id. at 774–86. And we see little purpose in rehearsing those reasons in what would turn out to be essentially an identical opinion here. The plaintiffs raise several issues in a cross-appeal. They argue, for instance, that the ban on electioneering communications by lawful permanent residents violates the Equal Protection Clause. But that claim is largely derivative of their First Amendment claim—and likely fails for the same reasons. See First Choice Chiropractic v. DeWine, 969 F.3d 675, 684–85 (6th Cir. 2020). Specifically, as the stay panel held, Ohio’s law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. See OPAWL, 118 F.4th at 785. The plaintiffs’ equal-protection claim is likely to fail, therefore, regardless of the degree of scrutiny that we would apply. The plaintiffs otherwise argue that Ohio’s ban on ballot-issue spending (as compared to spending on political candidates) by all foreign nationals violates the First Amendment. The plaintiffs further argue that § 3517.121 is void for vagueness. The district court has not yet addressed the vagueness argument; and though it might have addressed the argument about ballot-issue spending, OPAWL v. Yost, 747 F. Supp. 3d 1065, 1084–86 (S.D. Ohio 2024), the Ohio Attorney General contends that we should leave these issues to the district court on remand. We agree. We therefore reverse the district court’s order granting the injunction, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with that of the majority on the stay panel— given our substantial adherence to that opinion here.