Waterhouse v. Florida
Headline: Court pauses Montana high court’s decision and allows Supreme Court review of corporate independent political spending rules, temporarily affecting campaign finance enforcement during consideration of national rule.
Holding:
- Pauses enforcement of Montana court ruling during Supreme Court review.
- Keeps Citizens United-based national rules in effect unless Supreme Court changes them.
- Gives parties time to seek a national decision on corporate political spending.
Summary
Background
Montana's highest court issued a December 30, 2011 decision restricting corporate independent political spending in state elections. A party sought Supreme Court review by filing a petition asking the Justices to reconsider the national rule set in Citizens United. Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Breyer, issued a statement in support of temporarily pausing the Montana ruling while the petition is filed and addressed. The dispute began when Montana applied its rule that conflicted with the national standard from Citizens United.
Reasoning
The Court had to decide whether to pause the Montana decision while a petition for review is filed and resolved. The Court granted a stay, explaining that lower courts must follow existing Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United until the Court itself changes them. Justice Ginsburg noted Montana's experience and large sums spent in elections raise serious questions about whether the earlier ruling should continue to control this area of law.
Real world impact
The stay means Montana's new restriction on corporate independent expenditures will not take effect while the Supreme Court considers review, so enforcement is paused for now. If the Court denies review, the pause ends; if the Court agrees to hear the case, the pause continues until the Supreme Court issues its final mandate. This gives parties time to seek national resolution of campaign finance rules.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Ginsburg filed a brief statement supporting the stay, joined by Justice Breyer, urging the Court to consider whether Citizens United should remain controlling law.
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?