Common Cause v. Schmitt
Headline: Justices split evenly and upheld the lower court’s judgment in appeals involving Common Cause, Schmitt, the Federal Election Commission, and Americans for Change, keeping the lower ruling in place.
Holding: The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
- Leaves the lower court’s decision in place for the parties involved.
- Creates no new majority explanation of the law from the Supreme Court.
- Justice O'Connor did not participate in the decision.
Summary
Background
This case involves appeals from the federal trial court in Washington, D.C., brought by a public interest group called Common Cause and other parties, and a related appeal involving the Federal Election Commission and Americans for Change. The appeals were argued on October 7, 1981, and decided on January 19, 1982. Prominent lawyers and several outside groups filed briefs on both sides; amici including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southeastern Legal Foundation urged that the lower court’s ruling be upheld.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court issued a short, unsigned decision (per curiam). The Justices were equally divided, and because of that split the Court stated simply that the lower court’s judgment is affirmed. Justice O’Connor did not take part in deciding these cases. The opinion does not include a majority explanation of the legal issues, and the Court did not issue a longer written majority opinion in these appeals.
Real world impact
As a practical matter, the immediate effect is that the district court’s decision remains in force for these parties. Because the Supreme Court was evenly divided and provided no majority opinion, the opinion does not provide a new, nationwide explanation of the law from the high court. The case record shows this outcome resulted from the Court’s split vote rather than from a new legal ruling explained by a majority.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?