American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock
The Supreme Court summarily reversed the Montana Supreme Court, ruling that its 2010 decision in Citizens United applies with equal force to a Montana law banning corporate spending on candidates and political committees.
The Court decided the case without full briefing or argument, treating the outcome as controlled by Citizens United, while four justices dissented and argued Montana's own factual findings about corruption deserved separate consideration.
“political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation.”
The Court's core rationale for extending Citizens United to Montana's law.
How it got here: The Montana Supreme Court upheld the state's corporate-spending ban; the challengers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review that ruling.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Montana law barred corporations from spending money to support or oppose political candidates or parties. A group of corporations and organizations, including American Tradition Partnership, challenged the law as a violation of their First Amendment speech rights, arguing it was materially the same as the federal law the Supreme Court had struck down in Citizens United two years earlier.
The question before the Court
Did the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling on corporate political spending also block Montana's own ban on corporate campaign expenditures?
Why it matters
State laws restricting corporate election spending, not just federal ones, are now subject to the same First Amendment protections recognized in Citizens United. States like Montana that tried to justify their own corporate spending bans based on local evidence of corruption can no longer rely on that evidence to save such laws.
What changes now
The Montana Supreme Court's ruling is reversed, meaning Montana's ban on corporate campaign expenditures cannot be enforced. Because this was a summary disposition, there was no additional briefing or oral argument. The dissenting justices signaled continuing disagreement with Citizens United itself, but the majority's decision stands as the final word on this specific Montana law.
What this does not decide
The decision does not revisit or reconsider Citizens United itself; it only holds that Citizens United's rule extends to a state law that mirrors the federal law struck down there. It does not address whether other, differently worded state campaign-finance laws might be distinguishable.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Breyer
“technically independent expenditures can be corrupting in much the same way as direct contributions.”The dissent's central objection that independent corporate spending can still cause corruption.
Justice Breyer, joined by three other justices, argued he disagreed with Citizens United for the reasons given in Justice Stevens' opinion in that case, which found independent corporate spending can still be corrupting. He further argued that even accepting Citizens United, it should not override Montana's own factual finding that corporate independent expenditures had caused real corruption or its appearance in the state. He would have granted certiorari to reconsider Citizens United or its application here, but since the Court instead summarily reversed, he voted to deny the petition.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court treated Citizens United's holding — that political speech does not lose First Amendment protection just because it comes from a corporation — as controlling precedent that federal and state courts must follow under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.
- The Court reviewed Montana's arguments for treating its law differently from the federal law struck down in Citizens United and found that those arguments had either already been rejected in that decision or failed to identify any meaningful difference between the two laws.
- Because no meaningful distinction existed, the Court concluded Citizens United's rule applied directly to the Montana statute, leaving no serious room for a different outcome.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n (558 U. S. 310)
The Court applies Citizens United's rule directly to strike down Montana's similar state corporate-spending ban.