Last Updated: September 10, 2010 at 1:40 PM
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Case Information
Date Filed / Ended: December 13, 2007 / January 21, 2010
State: National
Issue: Campaign Finance
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Case 1:07-cv-02240); U.S. Supreme Court (Case 08–205)
Issue:
Do federal campaign finance laws apply to a critical film about a US Senator intended to be shown in theaters and on-demand cable. The Supreme Court ordered re-argument to focus on the constitutionality of limiting corporations’ independent spending during campaigns for the Presidency and Congress.
Status:
Final Decision entered 1/21/10
Related Links
- Election Law Blog
- SCOTUS Blog
- Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Finance Section
- Open Secrets
- National Conference on State Legislatures
- Open Congress/Sunlight Foundation
- State of Elections Blog
- The Campaign Legal Center
- Federal Elections Commission
- First Amendment Center
- Follow the Money Blog
- Pay to Play Blog
Supreme Court Documents
- Brief for the Alliance Defense Fund in Support of Appellant
- Brief for the US Chamber of Commerce in Support of Appellant
- Brief for the American Civil Rights Union in Support of Appellant
- Brief for the Foundation for Free Expression in Support of Appellant (filed 1/12/2009)
- Brief for the CATO Institute in Support of Appellant (filed 1/14/2009)
- Brief for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Support of Appellant (filed 1/15/2009)
- Brief for the Committee for Truth in Politics in Support of Appellant (filed 1/15/2009)
- Brief for the Center for Competitive Politics in Support of Appellant (filed 1/15/2009)
- Brief for the Institute for Justice in Support of Appellant (filed 2/2009)
- Brief for Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold, and former Representatives Christopher Shays and Martin Meehan in Support of Appellee (filed 2/2009)
- Brief for the Center for Political Accountability and the Center for Business Ethics Research in Support of Appellee (filed 2/23/2009)
- Brief for Appellant
- Brief for Appellee
- Reply Brief for Appellant
- Amicus Brief of Seven Former Chairmen and One Former Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission
- Amicus Brief of US Chamber of Commerce
- Amicus Brief of Wyoming Liberty Group, et al.
- Amicus Brief of Justice at Stake
- Amicus Brief of Sen. John McCain
- Amicus Brief of American Civil Rights Union
- Amicus Brief of AFL-CIO
- Amicus Brief of Former FEC Commissioners
- Amicus Brief of California First Amendment Coalition
- Amicus Brief of Campaign Finance Scholars
- Amicus Brief of Institute for Justice
- Amicus Brief of Judicial Watch
- Amicus Brief of Independent Sector
- Amicus 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, and West Virginia
- Amicus Brief of American Independent Business Alliance (filed 7/2009)
- Amicus Brief 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 (filed 7/2009)
- Amicus Brief of League of Women Voters (filed 7/2009)
- Amicus Brief 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 (filed 7/2009)
- Amicus Brief of Fidelis Center (filed 7/2009)
- Amicus Brief of Norman Ornstein (filed 7/2009)
- Amicus Brief of Rep. Chris Van Hollen, David Price, Michael Castle, and John Lewis (filed 7/2009)
- Amicus Brief of Pacific Legal Foundation (filed 7/2009)
- Amicus Brief of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (filed 7/2009)
- Amicus Brief of Reporters Committee (filed 7/24/2009)
- Amicus Brief of American Civil Liberties Union (filed 7/29/2009)
- Amicus Brief of Center for Political Accountability and the Carol and Lawrence Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research at the Wharton School (filed 7/30/2009)
- Amicus Brief of Public Good (filed 7/30/2009)
- Amicus Brief of Hachette Book Group, Inc. and HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. (filed 7/30/2009)
- Amicus Brief for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce in Support of Appellant and Reversal of Austin V. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (filed 7/30/2009)
- Amicus Brief of Committee for Economic Development (filed 7/31/2009)
- Amicus Brief of the Democratic National Convention (filed 7/31/2009)
- Amicus Brief of the Center for Independent Media, Calitics.com, Eyebeam, Zak Exley, Laura McGann, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law (filed 7/31/2009)
- Amicus Brief of The Sunlight Foundation (filed 7/31/2009)
- Amicus Brief of Former Officials of the American Civil Liberties Union (filed 7/31/2009)
- Amicus Brief of American Justice Partnership (filed 7/31/2009)
- Amicus Brief of California Broadcasters Association (filed 7/31/2009)
- Amicus Brief of Cato Institute (filed 7/31/2009)
- Amicus Brief of Center for Competitive Politics (filed 7/31/2009)
- Amicus Brief of Free Speech Defense & Education Fund (filed 7/31/2009)
- Amicus Brief of NRA (filed 7/31/2009)
- Amicus Brief for Senator Mitch McConnell in Support of Appellant (filed 7/31/2009)
- Supplemental Brief for the Appellee (filed 7/2009)
- Supplemental Brief for the Appellant (filed 7/24/2009)
- Supplemental Reply Brief for the Appellee (filed 8/2009)
- Supplemental Reply Brief for the Appellant (filed 8/19/2009)
- Oral Argument (held 9/9/2009)
- Decision (entered 1/21/2010)
District Court Documents
- District Court Decision (entered 1/15/2008)
Related EL@M Articles
- The Occlusion of Equality in Campaign Finance Law, Daniel P. Tokaji, March 31, 2010
- Citizens United: A Long-Term Perspective, Edward B. Foley, January 22, 2010
- Line-drawing after Overruling Austin, Edward B. Foley, September 9, 2009
- Citizens United, Stare Decisis, and Democracy, Edward B. Foley, July 31, 2009
Commentary
Provisional Ballots, Consent Decrees, and the Balance Between the Federal and State Governments
Owen Wolfe
A recent mandamus action filed by the Ohio Senate President and House Speaker Pro Tempore to require the Ohio Secretary of State to rescind directives issued in response to a consent decree issued in a federal case dealing with counting provisional ballots raises questions about the mechanics of state election law, the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the relationship between federal and state courts, the law of consent decrees, and more. I have attempted in this article to grapple with these issues in a fair and unbiased manner. Given the complexity of this problem, however, these matters are open to a variety of interpretations and this is just one approach. I hope, however, that this article can provide a useful starting point for a discussion about the future of provisional voting in Ohio and in the nation at large.
This paper is a first look by a student member of the Election Law @ Moritz team and reflects one possible perspective on the issue. Stay tuned, as more analysis from the team will follow as the litigation develops. Owen Wolfe is affiliated with the Ohio Democratic Party and the Obama ’12 campaign, but is not in any way associated with any litigation team working on this case. EL@M has posted the document because we believe it has public value and adds to the discourse on this topic.
more commentary...