Decided
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Holding
Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.
Judgment
Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Anthony McLeod Kennedy on Jan 21, 2010. in a 5-4 decision with an opinion written by Justice Kennedy. Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.
Supplemental Merits Briefs
- Supplemental brief of appellant Citizens United, Appellant
- Supplemental brief of appellee Federal Election Commission
- Supplemental reply brief of appellee Federal Election Commission
- Supplemental reply brief of appellant Citizens United
Supplemental Amicus Briefs
Neither party
- Supplemental Brief of Former Officials of the American Civil Liberties Union as Amici Curiae on Behalf of Neither Party
- Brief Amici Curiae of Hachette Book Group, Inc. and HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. in Support of Neither Party on Supplemental Question
- Brief of Independent Sector in Support of Neither Party
- Brief of the States of Montana, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia as Amici Curiae Addressing June 29, 2009 Order for Supplemental Briefing and Supporting Neither Party
Appellant
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Alliance Defense Fund
- Brief of Amicus Curiae American Civil Liberties Union
- Brief of Amicus Curiae American Civil Rights Union
- Brief of Amicus Curiae AFL-CIO
- Brief of Amicus Curiae American Justice Partnership
- Brief of Amici Curiae California Broadcasters Association
- Brief Amicus Curiae of California First Amendment Coalition
- Brief of Amici Curiae Campaign Finance Scholars
- Brief of Amici Curiae Cato Institute
- Brief of Amici Curiae Center for Competitive Politics
- Brief of Amici Curiae Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
- Brief of Amici Curiae Fidelis Center
- Brief of Amici Curiae Former FEC Commissioners
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Free Speech Defense & Education Fund
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Institute for Justice
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Judicial Watch
- Brief for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce in Support of Appellant and Reversal of Austin V. Michigan Chamber of Commerce in Support of Appellant on Supplemental Question
- Brief of Amicus Curiae NRA
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Pacific Legal Foundation
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Reporters Committee
- Brief Amicus Curiae for Senator Mitch McConnell in Support of Appellant
- Brief Amici Curiae of Seven Former Chairmen and One Former Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission
- Brief of Amicus Curiae US Chamber of Commerce
- Brief of Amici Curiae Wyoming Liberty Group, et al.
Appellee
- Brief Amicus Curiae of American Independent Business Alliance
- Brief Amici Curiae of Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21, Common Cause, U.S. PIRG, Americans for Campaign Reform, League of United Latin American Citizens and Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund in Support of Appellee
- Brief Amici Curiae of the Center for Independent Media, Calitics.com, Eyebeam, Zak Exley, Laura McGann, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
- Brief Amici Curiae of Center for Political Accountability and the Carol and Lawrence Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research at the Wharton School
- Brief Amicus Curiae of Committee for Economic Development
- Brief Amicus Curiae of DNC
- Brief Amicus Curiae of Justice at Stake
- Brief Amicus Curiae of League of Women Voters
- Brief Amici Curiae of Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy; Women’s International League for Peace & Democracy; Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County, Shays2: The Western Massachusetts Committee on Corporations & Democracy; and the Clements Foundation
- Brief of Public Good in Support of Appellee on Supplemental Question
- Brief Amici Curiae of Norman Ornstein
- Brief Amici Curiae of Rep. Chris Van Hollen. David Price, Michael Castle, and John Lewis
- Brief Amici Curiae of Senator John McCain
- Brief Amici Curiae of The Sunlight Foundation
Merits Briefs
- Brief for Appellant Citizens United
- Brief for Appellee United States of America
- Reply Brief for Appellant Citizens United
Amicus Briefs
- Brief for the Foundation for Free Expression in Support of Appellant
- Brief for the CATO Institute in Support of Appellant
- Brief for the Committee for Truth in Politics in Support of Appellant
- Brief for the Center for Competitive Politics in Support of Appellant
- Brief for the Alliance Defense Fund in Support of Appellant
- Brief for the Wyoming Liberty Group and the Goldwater Institute in Support of Appellant
- Brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in Support of Appellant
- Brief for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Support of Appellant
- Brief for the Institute for Justice in Support of Appellant
- Brief for the American Civil Rights Union in Support of Appellant
- Brief for the Center for Political Accountability and the Carol and Lawrence Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research in Support of Appellee
- Brief for Senator John McCain, Senator Russell Feingold, former Representative Christopher Shays, and former Representative Martin Meehan in Support of Appellee
Cert Stage
- Jurisdictional Statement of Citizens United
- Amicus Curiae Brief of the American Civil Rights Union In Support of Jurisdictional Statement of Appellant Citizens United
- FEC’s Motion to Dismiss or Affirm
- Brief Opposing Motion to Dismiss or Affirm
Links and Further Information
Pre-Argument
From the Blogosphere
- Election Law Blog: Who Should Argue Citizens United? (July 10, 2009)
- American Constitution Society Blog: Five Reasons Why Citizens United is a Truly Momentous Case (Sep. 1, 2009)
- American Constitution Society Blog: The Perils of Free Corporate Spending (Sep. 9, 2009)
Post-Argument
Media Links
- New York Times: The Trial of John Roberts (Sep. 12, 2009)
- Washington Post: Taking On the Book Banners (Sep. 13, 2009)
- Wall Street Journal: Free Speech, Now that Speech Is Free (Sep. 13, 2009)
- Los Angeles Times: Changing Political Money (Sep. 14, 2009)
- Hartford Business Journal: Corporate Free Speech (Sep. 14, 2009)
- Slate: How Liberals Can Win by Losing at the Roberts Court (Sep. 14, 2009)
- Wall Street Journal: Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law (Sep. 17, 2009)
- New York Times: The Rights of Corporations (Sep. 21, 2009)
- Boston Globe: Corporations Aren’t People Yet (Sep. 22, 2009)
- Yale Law Journal Online: Citizens Not United: The Lack of Stockholder Voluntariness in Corporate Political Speech (Oct. 15, 2009)
- National Law Journal: Flags of Convenience (Oct. 19, 2009)
- USA Today: Supreme Court Ruling Could Play Role in 2010 Governor’s Races (Nov. 16, 2009)
- Wall Street Journal: Campaign Finance Ruling Looms (Dec. 8, 2009)
- Los Angeles Times: Still No Decision on Bombshell Supreme Court Campaign Finance Case (Dec. 8, 2009)
- National Public Radio: No Court Ruling Today on Campaign Finance (Dec. 8, 2009)
- New York Times: Court Keeps Campaigns in Suspense (Dec. 14, 2009)
- New York Times: Hurry Up and Wait (Dec. 17, 2009)
- USA Today: ‘Why the Delay’ on Supreme Court’s Campaign Finance Case? (Dec. 29, 2009)
- National Public Radio: First Up For High Court In 2010: Campaign Finance (Dec. 31, 2009)
- New York Times: Courts Roll Back Limits on Election Spending (Jan. 8, 2010)
- ABC News: Super Bowl-Style Corporate Ads for Candidates? (Jan. 11, 2010)
From the Blogosphere
- Election Law Blog: Justice Scalia, Faux Judicial Restraint, and Real Judicial Restraint in Citizens United (Sep. 13, 2009)
- Huffington Post: Colbert: Corporations Are People, Too (Sep. 17, 2009)
- Jost on Justice: Sotomayor Shows Restraint; Roberts, Not So Much (Sep. 25, 2009)
- American Constitution Society Blog: Paul M. Smith on Citizens United and Court “Activism” (Sep. 29, 2009)
- PrawfsBlawg: Campaign Finance, Shareholders’ Rights and the Chamber of Commerce (Nov. 20, 2009)
- Election Law Blog: When Will We See an Opinion in Citizens United? (Nov. 29, 2009)
- American Constitution Society Blog: Previewing the Decision: Citizens United v. FEC, by Laurence Gold (Nov. 30, 2009)
- Balkinization: Citizens United, Corporate Personhood and the Constitution: CAC Releases Discussion Draft of New Report in Advance of Major Supreme Court Rulin (Dec. 3, 2009)
- Election Law Blog: Is Citizens United Drafting Sapping the Justices’ Energies and Affecting Their Work Product? And What Does it Mean for a Citizens United Opinion?(Dec. 8, 2009)
- The Volokh Conspiracy: So…Where are the (Argued) Supreme Court Opinions? Part III (Dec. 8, 2009)
- Blog of Legal Times: The Long Vigil for Citizens United (Dec. 14, 2009)
- Politico: The Supreme Court Leaves Washington in the Lurch (Dec. 14, 2009)
- The Volokh Conspiracy: Where is Citizens United? (Dec. 14, 2009)
- WSJ Law Blog: On Text Messages and . . . Waiting for Citizens’ (Dec. 14, 2009)
- Huffington Post: Supreme Court about to Gut Campaign Finance Laws…and Democracy? (Dec. 15, 2009)
- Huffington Post: Supreme Court to Hand Government to Republicans, Again: This Time, Forever (Dec. 17, 2009)
Post-Decision
Media Links
- The American Prospect: The Real Problem with Citizens United (Jan. 22, 2010)
- CBS News: Justice Stevens Stumbles: A Step to Retirement? (January 22, 2010)
- CNN: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending (January 22, 2010)
- National Public Radio: The Supreme Court Scrambles Politics — Again (January 22, 2010)
- The New Yorker: Bad Judgment (Jan. 22, 2010)
- New York Post: High Court rules for free speech (January 22, 2010)
- New York Times: Justices Turn Minor Movie Case Into a Blockbuster (Jan. 22, 2010)
- Seattle Times: Supreme Court’s momentous decision will derail any financial reform (January 22, 2010)
- Time: Is the Campaign-Finance Ruling Good for Democracy? (Jan. 22, 2010)
- The Wall Street Journal: Court Kills Limits on Corporate Politicking (January 22, 2010)
- Washington Post: High court shows it might be willing to act boldly (January 22, 2010)
- Christian Science Monitor: ‘Fighting’ Obama Hits Supreme Court Over Campaign Finance (Jan. 23, 2010)
- Los Angeles Times: A Bold Conservative Step by Supreme Court (Jan. 24, 2010)
- New York Sun: ACLU May Reverse Course On Campaign Finance Limits After Supreme Court Ruling (Jan. 24, 2010)
- New York Times: A Quest to End Spending Rules for Campaigns (Jan. 24, 2010)
- New York Times: Court Ruling Invites a Boom in Political Ads (Jan. 24, 2010)
- Washington Post: Justice Kennedy was Key to Conservatives’ Win in Campaign Finance Decision (Jan. 24, 2010)
- Washington Post: McCain Skeptical Supreme Court Decision Can Be Countered (Jan. 24, 2010)
- The Daily Show: Supreme Corp (Jan. 25, 2010)
- National Public Radio: Supreme Court Left Donor Disclosure Rules Intact (Jan. 25, 2010)
- New York Times: Stampede Toward Democracy (Jan. 25, 2010)
- ABC News: O’Connor Calls Citizens United Ruling ‘A Problem’ (Jan. 26, 2010)
- National Public Radio: Supreme Court Ruling Could Prove Harsh For Minority Politicians (Jan. 26, 2010)
- New York Times: Former Justice O’Connor Sees Ill in Election Finance Ruling (Jan. 26, 2010)
- Orlando Sentinel: Will Companies Go Wild on Campaign Spending? (Jan. 26, 2010)
- Wall Street Journal: How to Counter Corporate Speech (Jan. 26, 2010)
- Washington Post: Despite Court Ruling, Congress Can Still Limit Campaign Finance (Jan. 26, 2010)
- Washington Post: O’Connor: Corporate Campaign Funds Could Affect Judiciary (Jan. 26, 2010)
- ABC News: Appeals Court Skeptical of Campaign Finance Rules (Jan. 27, 2010)
- Atlanta Journal Constitution: Pro & Con: Is the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Campaigns Bad for Democracy? (Jan. 27, 2010)
- The New Republic: Obama’s War With the Court Just Escalated (Jan. 27, 2010)
- New York Times Opinionator Blog: Justice Alito’s Reaction (Jan. 27, 2010)
- USA Today: Campaign Finance Fights Not Over (Jan. 27, 2010)
- Washington Post: Regulator Asked to Abolish Campaign Restrictions (Jan. 27, 2010)
- ABC News: Supreme Court Historian: After President’s “Insult,”? Won’t Be Surprised If Supreme Court Doesn’t Attend Next Year’s State of the Union Address (Jan. 28, 2010)
- The Atlantic Monthly: SOTU: Anatomy of a ‘Slam’ that Wasn’t (Jan. 28, 2010)
- CBS News: Obama Skewers Court – and Signals Change Ahead (Jan. 28, 2010)
- CNN: Alito’s Reaction to Obama Was Fair (Jan. 28, 2010)
- Los Angeles Times: Campaign Finance Ruling’s Likely Impact Overblown (Jan. 28, 2010)
- New York Times: Supreme Court Gets a Rare Rebuke, In Front of a Nation (Jan. 28, 2010)
- New York Times: Taking a Closer Look at Assertions on Domestic and Foreign Policy (Jan. 28, 2010)
- New York Times: White House v. the Supreme Court (Jan. 28, 2010)
- Reuters: Supreme Court Moves Right, Focus on Social Issues (Jan. 28, 2010)
- Wall Street Journal: Obama Owes the High Court an Apology (Jan. 28, 2010)
- Wall Street Journal: Alito and Obama Face Alleged Breaches of Etiquette (Jan. 28, 2010)
- Washington Post: Campaign Finance: A ‘Reform’ Wisely Struck Down (Jan. 28, 2010)
- Los Angeles Times: Obama-Alito Tensions Surface at State of the Union Address (Jan. 29, 2010)
- National Public Radio: Democrats Follow Obama’s Lead On Finance Ruling (Jan. 29, 2010)
- New York Times: Hanging a ‘For Sale’ Sign Over the Judiciary (Jan. 29, 2010)
- Wall Street Journal: Obama v. the Supremes (Jan. 29, 2010)
- Washington Post: Reactions Split on Obama’s Remark, Alito’s Response at State of the Union (Jan. 29, 2010)
- Washington Post: Democrats Prepare Legislation to Counter Ruling on Campaign Spending (Jan. 29, 2010)
- Christian Science Monitor: Obama vs. Alito: Political dust-up during State of the Union (Jan. 30, 2010)
- Wall Street Journal: The Media and Corporate Free Speech (Jan. 30, 2010)
- Denver Post: Supreme Court’s Ruling Has Been Misunderstood (Jan. 31, 2010)
- Washington Post: Congress Prepares for a Battle Over Campaign Finance (Jan. 31, 2010)
- Washington Post: Idea of Company-as-Person Originated in Late 19th Century (Jan. 31, 2010)
- Newsweek: High Court Hypocrisy (Feb. 1, 2010)
- Seattle Times: Corporate Free Speech Is Not Un-American (Feb. 1, 2010)
- Washington Post: Justice Alito’s Candid Response to Obama’s Rebuke (Feb. 1, 2010)
- Boston Globe: Kerry Calls for Amendment to Restrict Corporate Campaign Spending (Feb. 2, 2010)
- Christian Science Monitor: Supreme Court’s Campaign Finance Ruling: Just the Facts (Feb. 2, 2010)
- National Law Journal: High Court Campaign Finance Opinion Roils Dozens of Cases (Feb. 2, 2010)
- Philadelphia Inquirer: Reagan Defter in Dealing with Court (Feb. 2, 2010)
- The Texas Tribune: Guest Column: The End of Judicial Elections? (Feb. 2, 2010)
- Washington Post: Lawmakers Pledge Action to Limit Election Spending (Feb. 2, 2010)
- National Public Radio: Democrats Plan Counterattack to Corporate Spending (Feb. 3, 2010)
- National Public Radio: Democrats Revisit Campaign Plans In Wake Of Ruling (Feb. 4, 2010)
- New York Times: What Price Politics? (Feb. 4, 2010)
- Chicago Tribune: Alito’s Gripe: Obama Said High Court Reversed 100 Years of Law (Feb. 6, 2010)
- USA Today: Campaign Case May Have Set Course For Supreme Court (Feb. 8, 2010)
- Los Angeles Times: Corporate Free-Speech Ruling Speaks of Shift in Supreme Court (Feb. 9, 2010)
- Wall Street Journal: Investors Seek More Disclosure on Political Spending (Feb. 9, 2010)
- Wall Street Journal: The Case Against Corporate Speech (Feb. 9, 2010)
- The Atlantic: Citizens United: The Democrats Strike Back (Feb. 11, 2010)
- CNN: Democrats Move to Counter Campaign-Finance Ruling (Feb. 11, 2010)
- Los Angeles Times: Real Political Reform Should Go Beyond Campaign Finance (Feb. 11, 2010)
- Los Angeles Times: Congress Pushes Back Against Supreme Court Ruling on Corporate Spending (Feb. 11, 2010)
- New York Times: Democrats Try to Rebuild Campaign-Spending Barriers (Feb. 11, 2010)
- USA Today: Democrats Push Quick Fixes on Campaign Finance (Feb. 11, 2010)
- Wall Street Journal: The Scalia v. Stevens Smack Down (Feb. 11, 2010)
- Washington Post: Democrats Suggest Ways to Curb Companies’ Campaign Spending (Feb. 11, 2010)
- Wall Street Journal: New Rules Proposed on Campaign Donors (Feb. 12, 2010)
- Washington Post: Citizens United is Part of the Problem, But it’s Not Part of the Answer (Feb. 12, 2010)
- National Public Radio: How Campaign Finance Ruling Changes Politics (Feb. 16, 2010)
- Washington Post: Two Democrats’ Remedy for High Court Campaign Finance Ruling (Feb. 16, 2010)
- New York Times: A Welcome, If Partial, Fix (Feb. 17, 2010)
- Los Angeles Times: Countering the Court (Feb. 19, 2010)
- Boston Globe: Campaign Financing Shift May Aid Critics (Feb. 24, 2010)
- Los Angeles Times: California Campaign Spending Provides Glimpse of What’s to Come for Nation (Feb. 24, 2010)
- New York Times: Missing the Tea Party (Feb. 25, 2010)
- New York Times: Decision Could Allow Anonymous Political Contributions by Businesses (Feb. 27, 2010)
- Philadelphia Inquirer: Obama Should Expand Court (Feb. 28, 2010)
- Washington Post: A Bipartisan Push to Clean Up the Supreme Court’s Mess (Mar. 8, 2010)
- BusinessWeek: It’s Time to Stand Up to the Supreme Court (Mar. 11, 2010)
- Wisconsin State Journal: Citizens United: Stop Using Name to Protest Ruling (Mar. 15, 2010)
- National Public Radio: Maryland PR Firm Runs for Congress (Mar. 16, 2010)
- The New Republic: Citizens Unite (Mar. 16, 2010)
- Boston Globe: Spending Ruling Adds Twist to Mass. Politics (Mar. 31, 2010)
- Washington Post: Citizens United Challenges the Strident Side of Supreme Court Ruling (Apr. 1, 2010)
- Houston Chronicle: Tracking the Cash (Apr. 24, 2010)
- CNN: Campaign Finance Proposal Targets Corporations (Apr. 29, 2010)
- Miami Herald: Bill Would Require Disclosure of Corporate Election Spending (Apr. 29, 2010)
- National Public Radio: Democrats Seek Disclosure on Political Ads (Apr. 30, 2010)
- Huffington Post: Adding Pathetic to Puny: On Why We’re Joining Others to Oppose the DISCLOSE Act (June 16, 2010)
- Washington Post: The DISCLOSE Act Is a Matter of Campaign Honesty (June 17, 2010)
From the Blogosphere
- ACS Blog: Citizens United v. FEC: Time for a Free Speech for People Amendment? (January 21, 2010)
- ACS Blog:Supreme Court Rules Against Regulations of Corporate Electioneering (January 21, 2010)
- Cato @ Liberty: Democracy Will Survive Citizens United (January 21, 2010)
- The Caucus: Political Fallout from the Supreme Court Ruling (January 21, 2010)
- Center for Progressive Reform: Of the Corporations, By the Corporations, For the Corporations? The Meaning of the Citizens United Decision (January 21, 2010)
- Foundation for Individual Rights in Education: Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decision Favors An Open Marketplace of Ideas (January 21, 2010)
- The Gaggle: Supreme Court Says Limitless, Independent Corporate Campaign Spending Is OK (January 21, 2010)
- Law Dork: Justice Thomas on ‘Proposition 8-related retaliation’ (January 21, 2010)
- The Volokh Conspiracy: Citizens United (January 21, 2010)
- WSJ Law Blog: What Will Citizens United Do to the 2010 Election Cycle? (January 21, 2010)
- The Volokh Conspiracy: The First Appearance of the Word “Blog”? in a Supreme Court OpinionThe First Appearance of the Word “Blog”? in a Supreme Court Opinion (January 21, 2010)
- Cato@Liberty: Speech For Me, But Not for Thee (Jan. 22, 2010)
- National Rifle Association: Supreme Court Hands Down Key Campaign Finance Decision – Repeals Unconstitutional Restrictions on Political Speech (Jan. 22, 2010)
- Politico: SCOTUS Ruling Not So Bad? (Jan. 22, 2010)
- Slate: Money Isn’t Speech and Corporations Aren’t People (Jan. 22, 2010)
- WSJ Law Blog: What the Smart-erotti are Saying Saying About Citizens United (Jan. 22, 2010)
- Election Law Blog: Chief Justice Roberts’ Concurring Opinion in Citizens United: Two Mysteries (Jan. 23, 2010)
- Conglomerate: Citizens United: First Corporate Thoughts (Jan. 24, 2010)
- Religion Dispatches: Welcome to the (New) Gilded Age: Supreme Court Delivers the Goods to Corporations (Jan. 24, 2010)
- Jost on Justice: The Roberts Court’s Activist Blow for Corporate Speech (Jan. 25, 2010)
- Law.com: Risky Strategy Leads to Big High Court Win (Jan. 25, 2010)
- PrawfsBlawg: What Next After Citizens United? (Jan. 25, 2010)
- Slate: The Floodgates Were Already Open (Jan. 25, 2010)
- Slate: Speeding Locomotive (Jan. 25, 2010)
- WSJ Law Blog: Backlash! Gearing Up for the Response to Citizens United (Jan. 25, 2010)
- ACS Blog: Citizens United, A Court Divided: A Madisonian Note (Jan. 26, 2010)
- ACS Blog: Citizens United and the Bankruptcy of Conservative Originalism at the Supreme Court (Jan. 26, 2010)
- Huffington Post: Chief ‘Justice’ Roberts and the Long Shadow of W (Jan. 26, 2010)
- Huffington Post: How Will SCOTUS Decision Affect Corporate Media? (Jan. 26, 2010)
- Huffington Post: The Supreme Court and Corporate Electioneering (Jan. 26, 2010)
- Politico: Obama to Push Hill on Foreign Cash (Jan. 26, 2010)
- Blog of Legal Times: High Court is Rare Topic for State of the Union Speeches (Jan. 27, 2010)
- Blog of Legal Times: Supreme Court Turns Out for Tongue-Lashing at State of the Union (Jan. 27, 2010)
- Huffington Post: Alito Mouths ‘Not True’ at State of the Union’ (Jan. 27, 2010)
- Politico: Justice Alito Mouths ‘Not True’ (Jan. 27, 2010)
- The Volokh Conspiracy: Awkward Moment at State of the Union Address (Jan. 27, 2010)
- Balkinization: Bad Mr. Obama Was Very Very Mean to the Poor Poor Supreme Court (Jan. 28, 2010)
- Blog of Legal Times: Leahy Lashes Out at Citizens United Ruling (Jan. 28, 2010)
- Blog of Legal Times: Justice Alito’s State of the Union Dissent (Jan. 28, 2010)
- Double X: Leave Alito Alone (Jan. 28, 2010)
- The Hill: Sen. Leahy: Court’s Decision Most Partisan Since Bush v. Gore (Jan. 28, 2010)
- Politico: Orrin Hatch: Obama ‘Rude’ to Court (Jan. 28, 2010)
- Politico: Sen. Russ Feingold: Samuel Alito Behavior ‘Inappropriate’ (Jan. 28, 2010)
- Salon.com: Justice Alito’s Conduct and the Court’s Credibility (Jan. 28, 2010)
- WSJ Law Blog: Potus’s SOTU SCOTUS Smackdown: Justified or Out of Line? (Jan. 28, 2010)
- Cato@Liberty: The Next Step After Citizens United (Jan. 29, 2010)
- Slate: Ghosts in the Machine (Jan. 30, 2010)
- Concurring Opinions: More Citizens United (Jan. 31, 2010)
- National Law Journal: Reformers Hope High Court Decision Will Kill Judicial Elections (Feb. 1, 2010)
- Huffington Post: John Kerry: Amend the Constitution in Response to Citizens United Decision (Feb. 2, 2010)
- JURIST: White House Presses Critique of High Court in Campaign Finance Case (Feb. 2, 2010)
- Politico: GOP Senators Perfect Art of Stalling (Feb. 2, 2010)
- Balkinization: What Can Congress Do in the Wake of Citizens United? (Feb. 3, 2010)
- Blog of Legal Times: Democrats Keep Up Pressure on Citizens United (Feb. 3, 2010)
- Blog of Legal Times: Idea of Banning Books Hangs Over Campaign Finance Debate (Feb. 3, 2010)
- Huffington Post: Pelosi Taps Task Force to Counter Supreme Court’s Citizens United Ruling (Feb. 3, 2010)
- The Peter Jennings Project: Constitutional Cloning: How the Court Came to View the Corporation as a “Person”? (Feb. 3, 2010)
- The Federalist Society: Online Debate Series: Citizens United v. FEC: A Roundtable Discussion (Feb. 4, 2010)
- Politico: Supreme Court Ruling Fuels Voter Ire (Feb. 9, 2010)
- PrawfsBlawg: Overruling Austin: Constitutional Modalities in Citizens United (Feb. 9, 2010)
- Huffington Post: What Ted Olson Needs to Know About Corporate Democracy After Citizens United (Feb. 11, 2010)
- Politico: Dems Try to Blunt SCOTUS Decision (Feb. 11, 2010)
- WSJ Law Blog: Citizens Divided? Dems Float Bill to Blunt Scotus Decision (Feb. 11, 2010)
- Cato @ Liberty: Congress Goes After Citizens United (Feb. 12, 2010)
- The Race to the Bottom: Corporate Governance and Campaign Finance: Citizens United v. FEC (The Need for Federal Intervention)(Part 1) (Feb. 12, 2010)
- Politico: Undoing SCOTUS-Decision Damage (Feb. 16, 2010)
- ACSBlog: What Does Citizens United Tell Us About the Roberts Court? (Feb. 18, 2010)
- PrawfsBlawg: Most Americans Disagree With the Citizens United Decision – Should We Care? (Feb. 18, 2010)
- American Constitution Society Blog: PBS Episode Explores Citizens United’s Impact on Judicial Elections (Feb. 22, 2010)
- Blog of Legal Times: Opinions Differ on Future Under Citizens United (Feb. 24, 2010)
- The Hill: Dodd Introduces Constitutional Amendment to Reverse SCOTUS on Campaign Spending (Feb. 24, 2010)
- Senatus: Dodd Introduces Constitutional Amendment to Reverse Supreme Court Campaign Finance Ruling (Feb. 24, 2010)
- American Constitution Society Blog: Prof. William Marshall on What Citizens United Tells Us About the Supreme Court (Feb. 26, 2010)
- American Constitution Society Blog: New Report on Corporations and the Constitution (Mar. 10, 2010)
- Center for Competitive Politics: Citizens United Hearing: The Semantics of “Freaking Out” and “Controlling” (Mar. 10, 2010)
- Huffington Post: Citizens United Changed Everything (Mar. 11, 2010)
- The Volokh Conspiracy: Citizens United to Stop the Citizens (Who Are) United Against Citizens United (Mar. 16, 2010)
- American Constitution Society Blog: Citizens United Decision Bolstering Business Lobby’s Efforts (Mar. 17, 2010)
- Concurring Opinions: My Bad!: The Supreme Court’s Assault on Judicial Elections (Mar. 17, 2010)
- Cato@Liberty: Lawrence Lessig’s Constitutional Amendment (Mar. 18, 2010)
- The Hill: Experts Don’t Expect Huge Fallout from Citizens United Decision in First Quarter (Mar. 31, 2010)
- Slate: Hushed Money (Apr. 6, 2010)
- Blog of Legal Times: Citizens United Bill Next Week? Corporate Forces Attack (Apr. 23, 2010)
- Conglomerate: Citizens United – Something Different Part II (Apr. 28, 2010)
- The Federalist Society: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – Podcast (Apr. 28, 2010)
- Blog of Legal Times: DISCLOSE Act Introduced To Respond To Citizens United Ruling (Apr. 29, 2010)
- Huffington Post: After Supreme Court Ruling, Time for a Campaign Finance Transplant Instead of More Band-Aids (Apr. 29, 2010)
- Politico: Dems Launch Citizens United Bill (Apr. 29, 2010)
More from SCOTUSblog
Other Resources
Related Coverage
Aug 14, 2008Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due September 17, 2008)
Sep 10, 2008Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 17, 2008.
Sep 17, 2008Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union filed.
Oct 17, 2008Motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellee Federal Election Commission.
Oct 24, 2008Reply of appellant Citizens United filed. (Distributed)
Oct 29, 2008DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 14, 2008.
Nov 14, 2008PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED.
Dec 5, 2008Consent to the filing of amicus briefs, in support of either party or neither party, received from counsel for the appellant.
Dec 11, 2008The time within which to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 8, 2009.
Dec 11, 2008The time within which to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including February 17, 2009.
Jan 8, 2009Joint appendix filed. Statement of costs received.
Jan 8, 2009Brief of appellant Citizens United filed.
Jan 12, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Free Expression filed.
Jan 14, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed.
Jan 15, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Committee for Truth in Politics, Inc. filed.
Jan 15, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed.
Jan 15, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed.
Jan 15, 2009Brief amicus curiae of National Rifle Association filed.
Jan 15, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Alliance Defense Fund filed.
Jan 15, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. (Distributed).
Jan 15, 2009Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union filed.
Jan 15, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Center for Competitive Politics filed.
Jan 26, 2009SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, March 24, 2009.
Jan 27, 2009Record from the U.S.D.C. for the District of Columbia is electronically filed.
Jan 29, 2009CIRCULATED.
Feb 3, 2009Exhibits and CDs received from U.S.D.C. for the District of Columbia.
Feb 17, 2009Brief of appellee Federal Election Commission filed. (Distributed)
Feb 23, 2009Brief amici curiae of Center for Political Accountability, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 24, 2009Brief amici curiae of Senator John McCain, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 17, 2009Reply of appellant Citizens United, Appellant filed. (Distributed)
Mar 24, 2009Argued. For appellant: Theodore B. Olson, Washington, D.C. For appellee: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
Jun 29, 2009This case is restored to the calendar for reargument. The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question: For the proper disposition of this case, should the Court overrule either or both Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), and the part of McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), which addresses the facial validity of Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 2 U.S.C. §441b? The briefs, not to exceed 6,000 words, are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Friday, July 24, 2009. Amicus briefs, not to exceed 4,500 words, may be filed with the Clerk and served upon counsel to the parties by 2 p.m., Friday, July 31, 2009. Reply briefs, not to exceed 3,000 words, may be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Wednesday, August 19, 2009. The case is set for oral argument at 10 a.m., Wednesday, September 9, 2009.
Jul 21, 2009Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or neither party received from counsel for the appellee.
Jul 23, 2009Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General.
Jul 24, 2009Supplemental brief of appellant Citizens United, Appellant filed. (Distributed)
Jul 24, 2009Supplemental brief of appellee Federal Election Commission filed. (Distributed)
Jul 24, 2009Supplemental brief amicus curiae of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)
Jul 28, 2009Brief amici curiae of Seven Former Chairmen and One Former Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)
Jul 29, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)
Jul 29, 2009Brief amici curiae of Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy, et al. in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)
Jul 29, 2009Brief amici curiae of Center for Political Accountability, et al. in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)
Jul 30, 2009Consent to the filing of amicus briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the appellant.
Jul 31, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in support of appellant filed. (Distributed).
Jul 31, 2009Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Liberties Union in support of the appellant filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Independent Sector in support of neither party filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amici curiae of Montana, et al. in support of neither party filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amici curiae of Former Officials of the American Civil Liberties Union in support of neither party filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amici curiae of California Broadcasters Association, et al. in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amici curiae of American Justice Partnership, et al. in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Center for Competitive Politics in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Campaign Finance Scholars in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amici curiae of Fidelis Center for Law and Policy, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Alliance Defense Fund in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Senator Mitch McConnell in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amicus curiae of National Rifle Association in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Michigan Chamber of Commerce in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amicus curiae of California First Amendment Coalition in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute in suport of appellant filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amici curiae of Wyoming Liberty Group, et al. in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amici curiae of Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, Inc., et al., in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amici curiae of Hachette Book Group, Inc., et al. in support of neither party filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amicus curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Committee for Economic Development in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amici curiae of Center for Independent Media, et al. in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amici curiae of Representatives Chris Van Hollen, et al. in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amici curiae of Norman Ornstein, et al. in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amici curiae of Justice at Stake, et al. in support of the appellee filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Democratic National Committee in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amici curiae of Sunlight Foundation, et al. in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amici curiae of Campaign Legal Center, et al. in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amici curiae of League of Women Voters of the United States, et al. in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Public Good in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amici curiae of Senator John McCain, et al. in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Brief amicus curiae of American Independent Business Alliance in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)
Jul 31, 2009Motion of Senator Mitch McConnell for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Jul 31, 2009Brief amicus curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc. in support of appellant filed.
Aug 3, 2009Opposition of appellant to motion of Senator McConnell for divided argument.
Aug 10, 2009SET FOR REARGUMENT ON Wednesday, September 9, 2009.
Aug 17, 2009Motion of Senator Mitch McConnell for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Aug 17, 2009Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General GRANTED. A total of 80 minutes is allocated for oral argument and the time is divided as follows: 30 minutes to appellant, 10 minutes to Senator Mitch McConnell, 30 minutes to appellee, and 10 minutes to Senator John McCain, et al.
Aug 18, 2009Motion of Wyoming Liberty Group, et al. in support of appellant for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument filed.
Aug 19, 2009Supplemental reply of appellant Citizens United, Appellant filed. (Distributed)
Aug 19, 2009Supplemental reply of appellee Federal Election Commission filed. (Distributed)
Sep 4, 2009Motion of Wyoming Liberty Group, et al. in support of appellant for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument DENIED.
Sep 9, 2009Argued. For appellant: Theodore B. Olson, Washington, D.C.; and Floyd Abrams, New York, N.Y., for Senator McConnell. For appellee: Elena Kagan, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., and Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D.C. for Senator McCain, et al.
Jan 21, 2010Adjudged to be AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and case REMANDED. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia and Alito, JJ., joined, in which Thomas, J., joined as to all but Part IV, and in which Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined as to Part IV. Roberts, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito, J., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined in part. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Feb 22, 2010JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Mar 30, 2010Exhibits & CS's returned to U.S.D.C. for District of Columbia.
Recommended Citation: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/