Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 491

330  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of the Court 

First,  even  if  a  party  could  somehow  waive  a  facial  chal­
lenge  while  preserving  an  as-applied  challenge,  that  would 
not prevent the Court from reconsidering Austin or address­
ing  the  facial  validity  of  § 441b  in  this  case.  “Our  practice 
‘permit[s]  review  of  an  issue  not  pressed  [below]  so  long  as 
it  has  been  passed  upon  .  .  .  .’ ”  Lebron,  513  U. S.,  at  379 
(quoting  United  States  v.  Williams,  504  U. S.  36,  41  (1992); 
ﬁrst  alteration  in  original).  And  here,  the  District  Court 
addressed Citizens United’s facial challenge.  See 530 
F.  Supp.  2d,  at  278  (“Citizens  wants  us  to  enjoin  the  opera­
tion  of  BCRA  § 203  as  a  facially  unconstitutional  burden  on 
the  First  Amendment  right  to  freedom  of  speech”).  In  re­
jecting  the  claim,  it  noted  that  it  “would  have  to  overrule 
McConnell”  for  Citizens  United  to  prevail  on  its  facial  chal­
lenge  and  that  “[o]nly  the  Supreme  Court  may  overrule  its 
decisions.”  Ibid.  (citing  Rodriguez  de  Quijas  v.  Shearson/ 
American Express, Inc., 490 U. S. 477, 484 (1989)).  The Dis­
trict  Court  did  not  provide  much  analysis  regarding  the  fa­
cial challenge because it could not ignore the controlling Su­
preme  Court  decisions  in  Austin  and  McConnell.  Even  so, 
the  District  Court  did  “ ‘pas[s]  upon’ ”  the  issue.  Lebron, 
supra,  at  379.  Furthermore,  the  District  Court’s  later 
opinion,  which  granted  the  FEC  summary  judgment,  was 
“[b]ased  on  the  reasoning  of  [its]  prior  opinion,”  which  in­
cluded the discussion of the facial challenge.  App. 261a (cit­
ing  530  F.  Supp.  2d  274).  After  the  District  Court  ad­
dressed  the  facial  validity  of  the  statute,  Citizens  United 
raised  its  challenge  to  Austin  in  this  Court.  See  Brief  for 
Appellant  30  (“Austin  was  wrongly  decided  and  should  be 
overruled”); id., at 30–32.  In these circumstances, it is nec­
essary to consider Citizens United’s challenge to Austin and 
the facial validity of § 441b’s expenditure ban. 

Second,  throughout  the  litigation,  Citizens  United  has  as­
serted  a  claim  that  the  FEC  has  violated  its  First  Amend­
ment  right  to  free  speech.  All  concede  that  this  claim  is 
properly before us.  And “ ‘[o]nce a federal claim is properly