Citizens United v. FEC
| Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | |
|---|---|
| Argued March 1, 2009 Reargued September 9, 2009 Decided January 21, 2010 | |
| Full case name | Citizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission |
| Docket no. | 08-205 |
| Citations | 558 U.S. 310 (more) 130 S. Ct. 876; 175 L. Ed. 2d 753; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 766 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Motion for preliminary injunction denied, 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2008); probable jurisdiction noted, 555 U.S. 1028 (2008). |
| Holding | |
| The provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 restricting unions, corporations, and profitable organizations from independent political spending and prohibiting the broadcasting of political media funded by them within sixty days of general elections or thirty days of primary elections violate the freedom of speech that is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas (all but Part IV); Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (Part IV) |
| Concurrence | Roberts, joined by Alito |
| Concurrence | Scalia, joined by Alito; Thomas (in part) |
| Concur/dissent | Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor |
| Concur/dissent | Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 | |
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings | |
| |
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court regarding campaign finance laws, in which the Court found that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and unions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court's 5–4 ruling in favor of Citizens United sparked significant controversy, with some viewing it as a defense of American principles of free speech and a safeguard against government overreach, while others criticized it as promoting corporate personhood and granting disproportionate political power to large corporations.
The majority held that the prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violated the First Amendment. The ruling barred restrictions on corporations, unions, and nonprofit organizations from independent expenditures, allowing groups to independently support political candidates with financial resources. In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the court's ruling represented "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government".
The decision remains highly controversial, generating much public discussion and receiving strong support or opposition from various politicians, commentators, and advocacy groups. Senator Mitch McConnell commended the decision, arguing that it represented "an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights". By contrast, then-President Barack Obama stated that the decision "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington".