American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11-1179 | Mont. S. Ct. | Not Argued | Jun 25, 2012 | 5-4 | Per Curiam | OT 2011 |
Holding: Montana’s argument in support of the judgment below was either already rejected in Citizens United v. FCC or fails to meaningfully distinguish that case.
Plain English Summary: Ordinarily, the Supreme Court does not decide a case until after it has accepted it for full-scale review, receives written legal arguments, and then holds a public hearing. Now and then, and perhaps as many as nine or ten times each Term, the Court disposes of a case without those formalities: it decides the case very soon after getting the case, usually indicating that the outcome was so predictable that there was no need to engage in full-dress proceedings. That speeded-up procedure is what the Court did on Monday in this case, by a 5-4 vote. The result was to overturn a Montana Supreme Court decision upholding a 1912 voter-approved ban on corporations’ spending of their own money on political campaigns in that state. The Court majority found that state court ruling obviously in conflict with a decision the Supreme Court had issued in January 2010 striking down a similar ban in federal law against corporate spending on politics. The four Justices in dissent conceded that the Supreme Court majority was not ready to take a new look at that 2010 decision, even in a case in which a state’s highest court had found that the state had a history of corrupt corporate influence in its political life.
Judgment: Summarily reversed in a per curiam opinion on June 25, 2012.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Opinion recap: Citizens United solidified (Lyle Denniston, June 25, 2012)
- Montana, detainee cases set (Lyle Denniston, May 29, 2012)
- Money, politics and Citizens United's fate (Lyle Denniston, May 23, 2012)
- Petition of the day (Matthew Bush, May 22, 2012)
- SCOTUS for law students: A campaign finance face-off (sponsored by Bloomberg Law) (Stephen Wermiel, May 18, 2012)
- Summary ruling on campaign money urged (UPDATED) (Lyle Denniston, May 1, 2012)
- Citizens United sequel filed (UPDATED) (Lyle Denniston, March 27, 2012)
- The Supreme Court, Citizens United II, and the November election [Updated] (Tom Goldstein, February 18, 2012)
- Montana campaign ruling on hold (Lyle Denniston, February 17, 2012)
- A Citizens United sequel: different result (Lyle Denniston, December 30, 2011)
Briefs and Documents
- Application for a stay
- Montana’s opposition to stay application
- Order staying the Montana Supreme Court’s decision
Certiorari-stage documents
- Opinion below (Mont. S. Ct.)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Amicus brief of Free Speech for People et al.
- Amicus brief of Citizens United
- Amicus brief of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
- Amicus brief of Senator Mitch McConnell
- Amicus brief of Former Officials of the American Civil Liberties Union in support of neither party
- Amicus brief of United States Representatives Robert Brady et al.
- Amicus brief of United States Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and John McCain
- Amicus brief of Former Federal Election Commission Officials et al.
- Amicus brief of the AARP
- Amicus brief of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association et al.
- Amicus brief of the Brennan Center for Justice
- Amicus brief of Retired Montana Supreme Court Justices
- Amicus brief of Walter Dellinger and James Sample
- Amicus brief of New York et al.
- Amicus brief of The Eleventh Amendment Movement (TEAM)
- Amicus brief of Essential Information
- Reply of petitioners
