Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 537.0

376  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Roberts, C. J., concurring 

claim—the  Act  violates  the  First  Amendment,  because  it 
prohibits political speech.  The Government has a defense— 
the  Act  may  be  enforced,  consistent  with  the  First  Amend­
ment,  against  corporations.  Whether  the  claim  or  the  de­
fense prevails is the question before us. 

Given  the  nature  of  that  claim  and  defense,  it  makes  no 
difference of any substance whether this case is resolved by 
invalidating the statute on its face or only as applied to Citi­
zens United.  Even if considered in as-applied terms, a hold­
ing  in  this  case  that  the  Act  may  not  be  applied  to  Citizens 
United—because  corporations  as  well  as  individuals  enjoy 
the  pertinent  First  Amendment  rights—would  mean  that 
any other corporation raising the same challenge would also 
win.  Likewise,  a  conclusion  that  the  Act  may  be  applied 
to  Citizens  United—because  it  is  constitutional  to  prohibit 
corporate  political  speech—would  similarly  govern  future 
cases.  Regardless whether we label Citizens United’s claim 
a  “facial”  or  “as-applied”  challenge,  the  consequences  of  the 
Court’s decision are the same.1 

II 

The text and purpose of the First Amendment point in the 
same  direction:  Congress  may  not  prohibit  political  speech, 
even  if  the  speaker  is  a  corporation  or  union.  What  makes 
this  case  difﬁcult  is  the  need  to  confront  our  prior  decision 
in Austin. 

This is the ﬁrst case in which we have been asked to over­
rule  Austin,  and  thus  it  is  also  the  ﬁrst  in  which  we  have 
had reason to consider how much weight to give stare decisis 
in assessing its continued validity.  The dissent erroneously 

1 The  dissent suggests  that  I am  “much  too quick”  to  reach this  conclu­
sion  because  I  “ignore”  Citizens  United’s  narrower  arguments.  Post,  at 
405,  n. 12.  But  in  fact I  do  not  ignore those  arguments;  on the  contrary, 
I  (and  my  colleagues  in  the  majority)  appropriately  consider  and  reject 
them on their  merits, before addressing Citizens  United’s broader claims. 
Supra, at 373–375; ante, at 322–329.