Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm'n
Citation | 546 U.S. 410,163 L. Ed. 2d 990,126 S. Ct. 1016 |
Decision Date | 23 January 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 04-1581.,04-1581. |
Parties | WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC. <I>v.</I> FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION. |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Held: WRTL's as-applied challenge is not foreclosed by McConnell. The District Court misinterpreted the McConnell footnote, which merely notes that because this Court found BCRA's primary definition of "electioneering communication" facially valid when used with regard to BCRA's disclosure and funding requirements, it was unnecessary to consider the constitutionality of the backup definition Congress provided. The Court did not purport to resolve future as-applied challenges. Contrary to the Federal Election Commission's argument, it is not clear that the District Court's dismissal also rested on an alternative ground.
Vacated and remanded.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
James Bopp, Jr., argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Richard E. Coleson and M. Miller Baker.
Solicitor General Clement argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Deputy Solicitor General Garre, Malcolm L. Stewart, Lawrence H. Norton, Richard B. Bader, David Kolker, and Harry J. Summers.*
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), § 203, as amended, 116 Stat. 91, prohibits corporations from using their general treasury funds to pay for any "electioneering communications." 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. III). BCRA § 201 defines "electioneering communications" as any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that refers to a candidate for federal office and that is broadcast within 30 days of a federal primary election or 60 days of a federal general election in the jurisdiction in which that candidate is running for office. 2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(3) (2000 ed., Supp. III). Appellant Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL), brought this action against the Federal Election Commission (FEC), seeking a judgment declaring BCRA unconstitutional as applied to several broadcast advertisements that it intended to run during the 2004 election. WRTL also sought a preliminary injunction barring the FEC from enforcing BCRA against those advertisements. WRTL does not dispute that its advertisements are covered by BCRA's definition of prohibited electioneering communications. Instead, it contends that BCRA cannot be constitutionally applied to its particular communications because they constitute "grassroots lobbying advertisements." Brief for Appellee 35 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the FEC has statutory authority to exempt by regulation certain communications from BCRA's prohibition on electioneering communications, § 434(f)(3)(B)(iv), at this point, it has not done so for the types of advertisements at issue here.
The three-judge District Court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and subsequently dismissed WRTL's complaint in an unpublished opinion. We noted probable jurisdiction, 545 U.S. 1164 (2005). Appellant asks us to reverse the judgment of the District Court because that court incorrectly read a footnote in our opinion in McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), as foreclosing any "as-applied" challenges to the prohibition on electioneering communications. We agree with WRTL that the District Court misinterpreted the relevance of our "uphold[ing] all applications of the primary definition" of electioneering communications. Id., at 190, n. 73. Contrary to the understanding of the District Court, that footnote merely notes that because we found BCRA's primary definition of "electioneering communication" facially valid when used with regard to BCRA's disclosure and funding requirements, it was unnecessary to consider the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arizonans for Second Chances, Rehab., & Pub. Safety v. Hobbs
...by the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Wis. Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC , 546 U.S. 410, 411–12, 126 S.Ct. 1016, 163 L.Ed.2d 990 (2006) (explaining that an as-applied attack argues that a law's application to a particular person under particula......
-
Vec v. State Public Disclosure Com'n, 77724-1.
...in so holding, McConnell did not preclude an as-applied challenge to section 203. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 546 U.S. 410, 411-12, 126 S.Ct. 1016, 163 L.Ed.2d 990 (2006) (WRTL I). WRTL II addressed such an as-applied challenge. In the controlling opinion, Chief J......
-
In Re: Anh Cao
...that the facial upholding of a law does not prevent future as-applied challenges. E.g., Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 546 U.S. 410, 411-12, 126 S.Ct. 1016, 163 L.Ed.2d 990 (2006) (holding that the plaintiff could bring an as-applied challenge to BCRA despite the Court upholding the ......
-
Voters Education Committee v. Washington State Public Disclosure Commission, No. 77724-1 (Wash. 9/13/2007)
...so holding, McConnell did not preclude an as-applied challenge to section 203. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 546 U.S. 410, 411-12, 126 S. Ct. 1016, 163 L. Ed. 2d 990 (2006) (WRTL I). WRTL II addressed such an as-applied challenge. In the controlling opinion, Chief J......
-
Facial and as-applied challenges under the Roberts Court.
...First Amendment and Campaign Finance Laws, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 25, 2009, at A16. (5.) 546 U.S. 151 (2006). (6.) 546 U.S. 320 (2006). (7.) 546 U.S. 410 (8.) In WRTL I, the Court held that its prior decision in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), sustaining BCRA against facial challenge did no......
-
The lonely death of public campaign financing.
...marks omitted). The text of the other two WRTL advertisements was similar. See id. at 459. (135.) Id. at 459. (136.) Id. at 460. (137.) 546 U.S. 410 (138.) Id. at 412. (139.) WRTL II, 551 U.S. 449. (140.) Id. at 483-84 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). (141.) ......