Constitutional Law Reporter
Award
Menu
  • Home
  • US Constitution
  • Supreme Court Cases
  • Justices
    • Chief Supreme Court Justices
    • Current Supreme Court Justices
    • Past US Supreme Court Justices
  • American Biographies
    • General
    • Presidents
    • Vice-Presidents
  • Articles
    • Current Cases
    • Historical Cases
    • Impeachment
  • Videos
  • Links
Hot-Topics

May 10, 2023 | SCOTUS Concludes Oral Arguments for the Term

Supreme Court Stands By Citizen’s United Decision

While the Supreme Court’s decision on healthcare reform dominated the headlines, another ruling may have a greater impact on the 2012 election season. The Court confirmed that its decision in Citizen’s United was not a fluke and its approval of corporate political spending applies equally to both state and local elections.

The Facts of the Case

In American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, 567 U.S. __ (2012), the state of Montana challenged the applicability of the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 588 U.S. 310 (2010). The decision, which gave rise to the “Super PAC,” held that the First Amendment does not allow political speech restrictions simply based on a speaker’s corporate identity.

Prior to the Citizen’s United decision, Montana had a long-standing ban on political contributions by corporations. The law provides that a “corporation may not make an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.” The state supreme court upheld that ban late last year even in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling; it found that Montana’s history of “rough contests for political and economic domination” gave the state a “unique and compelling interests” in restricting corporate political contributions.

The question of whether the holding of Citizens United applied to the Montana state law was taken up by the Supreme Court, without briefing or oral argument.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

Despite the flood of money entering into the political process, the justices who voted in favor of Citizen’s United have not altered their view. The justices issued a 5-4 per curium decision along the same ideological lines as the prior decision.

“The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law,” the majority wrote. “There can be no serious doubt that it does.”

The majority further stated, “Montana’s arguments in support of the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case.”

And just like that, the majority dismissed any hope that Citizen’s United might be overturned, at least by this Court.

Previous Articles

SCOTUS Rules Quiet Title Act’s Time Bar Is Claim-Processing Rule
by DONALD SCARINCI on May 1, 2023

In Wilkins v. United States, 598 U.S. ____ (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Quiet Title...

Read More
SCOTUS Takes on Jack Daniels’ First Amendment Parody Case
by DONALD SCARINCI on April 24, 2023

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a closely watched case involving intellectual pr...

Read More
SCOTUS Sides With Deaf Student in ADA Suit
by DONALD SCARINCI on April 18, 2023

In Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, 598 U.S. ____ (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a deaf s...

Read More
All Posts

The Amendments

  • Amendment1
    • Establishment ClauseFree Exercise Clause
    • Freedom of Speech
    • Freedoms of Press
    • Freedom of Assembly, and Petitition
    Read More
  • Amendment2
    • The Right to Bear Arms
    Read More
  • Amendment4
    • Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
    Read More
  • Amendment5
    • Due Process
    • Eminent Domain
    • Rights of Criminal Defendants
    Read More

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Read More

More Recent Posts

  • Supreme Court Sides With Arizona Death Row Inmate
  • Supreme Court Holds Debts Incurred by Fraud Are Ineligible for Bankruptcy Relief
  • NJ Supreme Court Rules Campus Police Officer Eligible for Arbitration
  • Lorem ipsum

Constitutional Law Reporter Twitter

A Twitter List by S_H_Law

Constitutional Law Reporter RSS

donald scarinci constitutional law attorney

Editor

Donald Scarinci

Managing Partner

Scarinci Hollenbeck

(201) 806-3364

Awards

con law awards

Follow me

© 2018 Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC. All rights reserved.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney Advertising