Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Media Items

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Reargument

Expanded View

Download MP3

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Oral Argument

Expanded View

Download MP3

Advocates

Theodore B. Olson (argued the cause for the appellant)

Floyd Abrams (on behalf of Senator Mitch McConnell, as amicus curiae, in support of the appellant)

Elena Kagan (Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the appellee)

Seth P. Waxman (on behalf of Senators John McCain et al. as amici curiae in support of the appellee)

Case Basics

Docket No.:

08-205

Appellant:

Citizens United

Appellee:

Federal Election Commission

Decided By:

Roberts Court (2009- )

Opinion:

558 U.S. ___ (2010)

Granted:

Friday, November 14, 2008

Argued:

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Reargued:

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Decided:

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Issues:

First Amendment, Commercial Speech

Location

Javascript is required to view this map.

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , 558 U.S. ___ (2010)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205)

Facts of the Case:

Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie. The Movie expressed opinions about whether Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton would make a good president.

In an attempt to regulate "big money" campaign contributions, the BCRA applies a variety of restrictions to "electioneering communications." Electioneering communication is "any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which -- (I) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office; (II) is made within -- (aa) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election for the office sought by the candidate; or (bb) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for the office sought by the candidate." Accordingly, Section 203 of the BCRA prevents corporations or labor unions from funding such communication from their general treasuries. Sections 201 and 311 require the disclosure of donors to such communication and a disclaimer when the communication is not authorized by the candidate it intends to support.

Citizens United argued that: 1) Section 203 violates the First Amendment on its face and when applied to The Movie and its related advertisements, and that 2) Sections 201 and 203 are also unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances.

The United States District Court denied the injunction. The court held that Section 203 on its face was not unconstitutional reasoning that the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC had already reached that determination. It also held that The Movie was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, as it attempted to inform voters that Senator Clinton was unfit for office, and thus Section 203 was not unconstitutionally applied. Lastly, it held that Sections 201 and 203 were not unconstitutional as applied to the The Movie or its advertisements. The court reasoned that the McConnell decision recognized the disclosure of donors "might be unconstitutional if it imposed an unconstitutional burden on the freedom to associate in support of a particular cause", but those circumstances did not exist in Citizen United's claim.

Question:

1) Did the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell resolve all constitutional as-applied challenges to the BCRA when it upheld the disclosure requirements of the statute as constitutional?

2) Do the BCRA's disclosure requirements impose an unconstitutional burden when applied to electioneering requirements because they are protected "political speech" and not regulable "campaign speech"?

3) If a communication lacks a clear plea to vote for or against a particular candidate, is it subject to regulation under the BCRA?

4) Should a feature length documentary about a candidate for political office be treated like the advertisements at issue in McConnell and therefore be subject to regulation under the BCRA?

Conclusion:

No. No. Yes. Yes. The Supreme Court overruled its precedent in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. There, the Court held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity. With Justice Anthony M. Kennedy writing for the majority and joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin G. Scalia and Samuel A. Alito, and Justice Clarence Thomas as to all but Part IV, and Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotamayor as to Part IV, the Court held that the government may not limit corporate independent expenditures. The Court reasoned that the First Amendment does not allow the government to impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers, like corporations as in this case. The Court went on to state that political speech is "indispensible" to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. The Court further held that the BCRA's disclosure requirements as applied to The Movie were constitutional. The Court reasoned that disclosure is justified by a "governmental interest" in providing the "electorate with information" about election-related spending resources. Moreover, the Court reasoned that the disclosure requirements would not leave members of Citizens United in danger of threats, harassment, or reprisals that might make such disclosures unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Alito, wrote a separate concurring opinion. He emphasized the care with which the Court handles constitutional issues and its attempts to avoid constitutional issues when at all possible. Here, the Court had no narrower grounds upon which to rule, except to handle the First Amendment issues embodied within the case. Justice Scalia also wrote a separate concurring opinion and was joined by Justice Alito and Justice Thomas in part. He took pains to criticize Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion and Justice Stevens' understanding of the Framer's view towards corporations. Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotamayor, wrote a dissenting opinion. He argued that corporations are not members of society and that there are compelling governmental interests to curb corporations' ability to spend money during local and national elections.

Decisions

Decision: 5 votes for Citizens United, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

Sort by Ideology