McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
12-536	D.D.C	Oct 8, 2013 Tr.Aud.	Apr 2, 2014	5-4	Roberts	OT 2013

Holding: Because aggregate limits restricting how much money a donor may contribute to candidates for federal office, political parties, and political action committees do not further the government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of such corruption, while at the same time seriously restricting participation in the democratic process, they are invalid under the First Amendment.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on April 2, 2014. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan joined.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearing on proposed campaign finance amendment (Amy Howe)
Legal scholarship highlight: How should the Court assess the workings of the other institutions of government? (Richard Pildes)
Justice Stevens goes to the Senate (Amy Howe)
Symposium: McCutcheon and the future of campaign finance regulation (Jan Baran)
Symposium: The Supreme Court and the McCutcheon decision (Fred Wertheimer)
Symposium: McCutcheon opens the door to massive party contributions, but four Justices continue to push back forcefully (Paul Smith)
Symposium: Welcome to Oligarchs United (Burt Neuborne)
Symposium: The First Amendment’s protection of political speech extends to both donations and spending (Ilya Shapiro)
Symposium: Does the Chief Justice not understand politics, or does he understand it all too well? (Richard Hasen)
Foreword: It’s all forward now (Ronald Collins and David Skover)
Divided Court strikes down campaign contribution caps: In Plain English (Amy Howe)
Opinion analysis: Freeing more political money (Lyle Denniston)
A civil day on the bench for opinions on the impolite world of campaign finance (Mark Walsh)
The ACLU & the McCutcheon case (Ronald Collins)
Book excerpt: Before McCutcheon – The ACLU position in the early years (Ronald Collins)
The Chief Justice looks for a compromise on contribution caps? This morning's argument in Plain English (Amy Howe)
Argument recap: How is political influence bought? (Lyle Denniston)
Court returns to campaign finance reform: Tomorrow's oral argument in Plain English (Amy Howe)
Argument preview: Campaign finance -- again (Lyle Denniston)
Symposium: Voters and contributors (Tamara Piety)
Symposium: Aggregate limits and the fight over frame (Justin Levitt)
Symposium: McCutcheon v. FEC and the fork in the road (Joel Gora)
Originalism: It’s not just for conservatives anymore (Adam Winkler)
Burning the house to roast the pig: Can elections be saved by banning political speech? (Bob Corn-Revere)
Symposium: The distinction between contribution limits and expenditure limits (Erwin Chemerinsky)
Symposium: McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (Ronald Collins and David Skover)
Symposium announcement (Ronald Collins)
GOP seeks more donor freedom (Lyle Denniston)
Campaign donation issue reopened (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Oct 26 2012	Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due December 3, 2012)
Nov 14 2012	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 2, 2013.
Jan 2 2013	Motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellee Federal Election Commission.
Jan 14 2013	Opposition to motion to dismiss or affirm of appellants Shaun McCutcheon, et al., Appellants filed. (Distributed)
Jan 16 2013	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.
Feb 19 2013	PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED.
Mar 1 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from the Solicitor General.
Mar 7 2013	The time to file the joint appendix and appellants' brief on the merits is extended to and including May 6, 2013.
Mar 11 2013	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by appellants Shaun McCutcheon, et al., Appellants.
Apr 1 2013	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.
Apr 22 2013	The time to file appellee's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 18, 2013.
May 6 2013	Brief of appellant Republican National Committee filed.
May 6 2013	Brief of appellant Shaun McCutcheon
May 8 2013	Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union filed.
May 10 2013	Brief amici curiae of National Republican Senatorial Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee filed.
May 13 2013	Brief amici curiae of Downsize DC Foundation, et al. filed.
May 13 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty filed.
May 13 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Senator Mitch McConnell filed.
May 13 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed.
May 13 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Center for Competitive Politics filed.
May 13 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Committee for Justice filed.
May 13 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed.
May 13 2013	Brief amici curiae of Tea Party Leadership Fund, et al. filed.
May 13 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Cause of Action Institute filed.
May 13 2013	Brief amici curiae of Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression and the Media Institute filed.
Jul 18 2013	Brief of appellee Federal Election Commission filed.
Jul 22 2013	CIRCULATED.
Jul 23 2013	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, October 8, 2013.
Jul 24 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. School of Law filed. (Distributed)
Jul 24 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Americans for Campaign Reform filed. (Distributed)
Jul 25 2013	Brief amici curiae of Representatives Chris Van Hollen and David Price filed. (Distributed)
Jul 25 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Professor Lawrence Lessig filed. (Distributed)
Jul 25 2013	Brief amici curiae of Democratic Members of the United States House of Representatives filed. (Distributed)
Jul 25 2013	Brief amici curiae of The Campaign Legal Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jul 25 2013	Motion of Senator Mitch McConnell for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Jul 25 2013	Brief amici curiae of Communications Workers of America, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jul 25 2013	Brief amici curiae of National Education Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Aug 5 2013	Record from U.S.D.C. for the District of Columbia is electronic and located on PACER.
Aug 16 2013	Reply of appellant Republican National Committee filed. (Distributed)
Aug 19 2013	Reply of appellant Shaun McCutcheon filed. (Distributed)
Aug 30 2013	Motion of Senator Mitch McConnell for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Oct 8 2013	Argued. For appellants: Erin E. Murphy, Washington, D. C.; and Bobby R. Burchfield, Washington, D. C. (for Senator Mitch McConnell, as amicus curiae.) For appellee: Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
Apr 2 2014	Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined.
May 5 2014	JUDGMENT ISSUED

Featured Posts

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling (Updated) – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court will release orders from the January 18 conference on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday at 10 a.m.
The justices will meet next for their February 15 conference.
The calendar for the February sitting, which will begin on Tuesday, February 19, is available on the Supreme Court's website.
Recent Decisions
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
- City of Escondido, California v. Emmons The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit failed to conduct the analysis required by Supreme Court precedents in determining whether two Escondido police officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Shoop v. Hill Because Danny Hill’s intellectual disability claim must be evaluated based solely on holdings of the Supreme Court that were clearly established at the time the state-court decisions were rendered, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s reliance on Moore v. Texas -- which was handed down much later -- was plainly improper.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials—when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 9

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Jan. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
		1 Holiday	2	3	4 Conference	5
6	7 Orders MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. V. ALBRECHT (17-290) OBDUSKEY V. MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP (17-1307)	8 HERRERA V. WYOMING (17-532) FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORP. V. WALL-STREET.COM, LLC (17-571) Opinions	9 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA V. HYATT (17-1299)	10	11 Conference	12
13	14 Orders THACKER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (17-1201) RIMINI STREET INC. V. ORACLE USA INC. (17-1625)	15 HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. V. JACKSON (17-1471) AZAR V. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES (17-1484) Opinions	16 KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA (17-647) TENNESSEE WINE AND SPIRITS RETAILERS ASSOCIATION V. BLAIR (18-96)	17	18 Conference	19
20	21 Holiday	22 Orders Opinions	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at Harvard

On November 13, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and Judge Susan Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit presided over the final round of the 2018 Ames Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law School.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	9
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73

Editor's Note :

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling (Updated) – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of January 18, 2019

Major Cases

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Jan. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award