Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 490

Cite as: 558 U. S. 310 (2010) 

329 

Opinion of the Court 

merely suggesting it.  This is especially  true in the context 
of  the  First  Amendment.  As  the  Government  stated,  this 
case “would require a remand” to apply a de minimis stand­
ard.  Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  39  (Sept.  9,  2009).  Applying  this 
standard  would  thus  require  case-by-case  determinations. 
But  archetypical  political  speech  would  be  chilled  in  the 
meantime.  “ ‘First  Amendment  freedoms  need  breathing 
space  to  survive.’ ”  WRTL,  supra,  at  468–469  (opinion  of 
Roberts,  C.  J.)  (quoting  NAACP  v.  Button,  371  U. S.  415, 
433  (1963)).  We  decline  to  adopt  an  interpretation  that 
requires  intricate  case-by-case  determinations  to  verify 
whether  political  speech  is  banned,  especially  if  we  are  con­
vinced that,  in the end,  this corporation has  a constitutional 
right to speak on this subject. 

E 

As  the  foregoing  analysis  conﬁrms,  the  Court  cannot  re­
solve this case on a narrower ground without chilling politi­
cal speech, speech that is central to the meaning and purpose 
of the First Amendment.  See Morse v.  Frederick, 551 U. S. 
393,  403  (2007).  It  is  not  judicial  restraint  to  accept  an  un­
sound, narrow argument just so the Court can avoid another 
argument with broader implications.  Indeed, a court would 
be  remiss  in  performing  its  duties  were  it  to  accept  an  un­
sound  principle  merely  to  avoid  the  necessity  of  making  a 
broader  ruling.  Here, the  lack  of a  valid  basis  for an  alter­
native ruling requires full consideration of the continuing ef­
fect of the speech suppression upheld in Austin. 

Citizens United stipulated to dismissing count 5 of its com­
plaint, which raised a facial challenge to § 441b, even though 
count 3 raised an as-applied challenge.  See App. 23a (count 
3:  “As  applied  to  Hillary,  [§ 441b]  is  unconstitutional  under 
the First Amendment guarantees of free expression and as­
sociation”).  The  Government  argues  that  Citizens  United 
waived  its  challenge  to  Austin  by  dismissing  count  5.  We 
disagree.