Sotomayor & Citizens United: so many possibilities … same result
Sometimes the obvious is simply that. There's no way around it.
“It” in this case is the outcome in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the “Hillary movie” campaign-ad case to be re-argued by the Supreme Court on Sept. 9.
Though it's uncertain how exactly a majority of the Court will arrive at a conclusion, there can be little or no question as to the outcome. If the oral arguments in March reveal anything, there are five easy votes to sustain the free-expression claims of the group that produced “Hillary: The Movie,” Citizens United. And nothing that Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the new addition to the Court, does is likely to change that, barring a miracle.
The lineup to sustain Citizens United’s free-speech argument: Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. True, Justice Thomas, consistent with his usual practice, asked no questions when the case was initially argued. But his voting record in campaign-finance cases strongly suggests he will uphold the free-expression claim and again join his conservative colleagues as he did in campaign cases such as Davis v. Federal Election Commission (2008), Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007), Vermont Republican State Committee v. Sorrell (2006) and Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont (2003).
So if the obvious is just that, then what difference, if any, can Justice Sotomayor’s presence on the Court make — even if she approaches such issues differently from her predecessor, Justice David Souter?
In a sense, it doesn’t matter because there are already five votes to uphold the First Amendment claim and that calculation does not include Souter’s vote. Moreover, as evidenced by his questions in the oral arguments in Citizens United and his voting record in campaign-finance cases, Souter would be inclined to deny any First Amendment claim in this case.
That said, some observations could still be made on how Justice Sotomayor might approach such issues.
Reading tea leaves
Sotomayor's judicial record doesn't give us much to go on. There are a few tea leaves in the form of a 2005 case from Vermont while she served on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and in her service on a New York City campaign-regulation board some years ago, on which she backed tough restrictions.
In the Vermont case, Landell v. Sorrell, she voted to deny a hearing by the full 2nd Circuit. That 7-5 vote let stand a decision upholding restrictions in a Vermont campaign-finance law, notwithstanding a First Amendment challenge to it. In the Landell matter, then-Judge Sotomayor signed onto a concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judges Robert Sack and Robert Katzmann.
The Sack-Katzmann concurrence concerned the merits of full-court review rather than First Amendment law. As the two judges wrote: “Whether the question here is ‘of exceptional importance’ is, for us, a close call. The issue of campaign finance and its relationship to First Amendment protection for political expression is obviously important, at least as a general matter. It is less clear to us, though, that the decision in the case that we are being asked to review is, at this stage, itself ‘exceptionally’ important.” Nonetheless, the concurrence left open the possibility that the judges might “reconsider” the matter in light of changed circumstances.
Given the cautious posture of the Landell concurrence, it is hard to discern what it could mean in how Sotomayor might analyze or vote in Citizens United. When asked about the matter directly in a written question from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., Sotomayor responded obliquely, stressing how her vote reflected “a number of factors.” She added: “Whether and how these considerations might apply in another case raising a different constitutional issue would depend on the facts and procedural posture of the case.”
Speculations
As Stephen Sondheim wrote, “A blank page or canvas / So many possibilities.”
As to guessing how Justice Sotomayor might vote in Citizens United or how she might analyze the issues, we can speculate generally on a range of possibilities.
In all of these scenarios, the one constant (save for #3) is the outcome in the case. But even in #3, if Sotomayor's arguments and logic were as compelling as those of, say, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Abrams v. United States (1919), that would not change the outcome in Citizens United any more than it did in Abrams. Which nonetheless points to another possibility:
Other factors
Given what we know about Sotomayor and her approaches to law generally and the First Amendment in particular (see Sonia Sotomayor & the First Amendment), a few more thoughts spring to mind.
Conclusion
To return to the obvious, the outcome in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission will not be affected by Justice Souter’s absence or by Justice Sotomayor’s presence.
That asserted, there are a range of possibilities, some far more likely than others. Whatever those possibilities, it is unlikely that Sotomayor, or any new justice for that matter, will act boldly. After all, it took the not-too-shy Hugo Black four years before he even began to express a daring First Amendment view in an opinion. That is the norm; such matters take time.
Beyond her vote in Citizens United, we will probably have to wait to see just how Justice Sonia Sotomayor decides to paint her First Amendment canvas.
Tags: campaign ad, campaign finance, campaign spending, David, political speech, Sonia, Sotomayor, Souter, U.S. Supreme Court
The First Amendment Center is an educational organization and cannot provide legal advice.
Ken Paulson is president and chief executive officer of the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University and in Washington, D.C. Previously, Paulson served as the editor and senior vice president/news of USA Today.
Gene Policinski, senior vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center and president and chief operating officer of the Diversity Institute, is a veteran journalist whose career has included work in newspapers, radio, television and online.
John Seigenthaler founded the First Amendment Center in 1991 with the mission of creating national discussion, dialogue and debate about First Amendment rights and values.
Dr. Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum. He writes and speaks extensively on religious liberty and religion in American public life.
David L. Hudson Jr. is an expert in First Amendment issues who writes for firstamendmentcenter.org and for other publications. Hudson teaches law and was a scholar at the First Amendment Center.
Tiffany Villager is director/First Amendment studies at the First Amendment Center, which she joined in 1993. She also served as the center’s research manager and research coordinator, and developed the center’s library.
