Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • C
  • Citizens United v. Federal Election Commissi…Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

United States Supreme Court
558 U.S. 310 (2010)


 

Facts

Citizens United (plaintiff) is a nonprofit corporation that primarily accepts funds from private donations, with a small portion of its funds coming from for-profit corporations. In January 2008, Citizens United produced a documentary film that was essentially a negative advertisement urging viewers to vote against then-Senator Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary election. Citizens United released the film in theaters and on DVD, and began running advertisements about the film’s future release on video-on-demand. The film and advertisements amounted to “express advocacy” by Citizens United, and thus raised concerns under § 441(b) of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). Section 441(b) makes it a felony for all corporations–including nonprofit advocacy corporations–either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within thirty days of a primary election or sixty days of a general election. Section 441(b) carves out an exception for Political Action Committees (PACs) in that it permits the political speech of these groups, even when the PACs are formed by corporations. Citizens United challenged the constitutionality of § 441(b) in federal district court against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) (defendant) on the ground that § 441(b) was an unconstitutional restriction of freedom of speech for corporations. The district court ruled for the FEC, and Citizens United appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)

Concurrence (Scalia, J.)

Dissent (Stevens, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 450,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 450,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers


What is current case law on this holding?

Followed? Distinguished? How do I get to more recent cases?

Want to see this answer?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and get access to all answers in our Q&A database

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial

Tempor minim nulla id mollit ullamco consequat aliquip adipisicing irure officia tempor. Magna sit eiusmod laborum proident laboris ex sunt. Non labore ex officia irure qui et laboris aliqua in minim. Labore velit aliqua proident officia cillum occaecat dolore tempor. Ullamco in consequat labore amet laborum proident reprehenderit anim cillum excepteur. Elit do nostrud nisi excepteur sit dolor pariatur fugiat. Nisi incididunt incididunt do est velit excepteur enim excepteur incididunt mollit pariatur. Irure tempor non in esse do. Laboris eiusmod in ad ut enim est duis ad sint veniam eiusmod.