First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (docket #: 07-953) (2010)

Secondary Link Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission  [Legal Information Institute]
Argument Date 09/09/2009
Decided 1/21/2010
Supreme Court Vote 5-4
Note The case was first argued on 3/24/09. Afterward, the Court ordered the case to be reargued. The Court asked the parties to brief the isssue of whether Austin v. Michigan (1990) & McConnell v. FEC (2003) should be overruled.
Supreme Court Ruling First Amendment claim sustained on corporate spending provisions; denied as to the disclosure requirements.
Issue(1.) Whether federal campaign-finance law provisions prohibiting corporate and union independent spending violate the First Amendment. (2) Whether federal campaign-law provisions imposing disclaimer and disclosure requirements violate the First Amendment.
Majority Opinion Justice Anthony Kennedy
Concurring Opinion Justices Antonin Scalia (joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas in part); Chief Justice John Roberts (joined by Alito); Thomas (concurring in part and dissenting in part)
Dissenting Opinion Justice John Paul Stevens (joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor). Dissent on disclosure: Thomas.
Certiorari Granted 11/14/2008
Lower Court District Court for the District of Washington (3-judge panel)
Lower Court Ruling First Amendment claim denied.
Oral Arguments transcript (03/24/09)
transcript (09/09/09)
audio file (09/09/09)
For Petitioner
Theodore Olson

For Respondent
Solicitor General Elena Kagan

For Amicus
Floyd Abrams (Senator Mitch McConnell, as amicus curiae, in support of appellant)

Sex Waxman (Senators John McCain, et al., as amici curiae, in support of appellee)

For Petitioner
Supplemental Brief

For Respondent
Supplemental Brief

Supplemental Reply Brief (SCOTUSblog)

For United States
Solicitor General's Motion for Divided Argument

For Amicus
Amicus Brief for Senators John McCain & Russell Feingold & former Representatives Christopher Shays & Martin Meehan

Brief Amici Curiae of Seven Former Chairmen & One Former Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission

Tony Mauro Analysis
"Majority skeptical of corporate-speech restrictions" (09/10/2009)

"‘Hillary movie’ case: courtroom drama" (09/04/2009)

"Delay in 'Hillary' case scares campaign reformists" (06/30/2009 )

"Court focuses skeptical eye on McCain-Feingold" (03/25/2009)

'Hillary movie:' campaign-finance victim? (11/17/2008)

Opinion - Lower Court
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (D.C. Dist. Ct, 3-judge panel, 2008)

AP, "Anti-Hillary dispute to be re-heard" (06/29/09)

AP, "Court hears dispute over 'Hillary' movie" (03/24/09)

AP, "Court re-hears 'Hillary movie' case" (09/09/09)

"Briefing set on Citizens United rehearing" (SCOTUSblog) (06/29/09)

Lyle Denniston, "Analysis: Campaign films may get OK" (SCOTUSblog, March 24, 2009)

SCOTUSblog (merit & amicus briefs)

SCOTUSblog, "New briefs ordered in campaign ad case" (2/29/08)

SCOTUSblog, "Swift ruling sought on campaign ads" (01/22/08)

Adam Schukman, "Citizens United attracts many 'friends'" (08-24-09)

Lyle Denniston, "Analysis: Two precedents in jeopardy" (09/09/09) (SCOTUSblog)

Ronald Collins, "Sotomayor & Citizens United: so many possibilities ... same result" (09-04-09 )

About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
How to contribute
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment

Religious liberty in public schools
First Reports
Supreme Court
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Freedom Sings™
First Amendment

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment

Lesson plans
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links






This is from Cache data array: 13:14:05