Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 483

322  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of the Court 

The  District  Court  denied  Citizens  United’s  motion  for  a 
preliminary  injunction,  530  F.  Supp.  2d  274  (DC  2008)  (per 
curiam),  and  then  granted  the  FEC’s  motion  for  summary 
judgment,  App.  261a–262a.  See  id.,  at  261a  (“Based  on  the 
reasoning  of  our  prior  opinion,  we  ﬁnd  that  the  [FEC]  is 
entitled  to  judgment  as  a  matter  of  law.  See  Citizen[s] 
United  v. FEC,  530 F.  Supp. 2d  274 (D.  D. C.  2008) (denying 
Citizens  United’s  request  for  a  preliminary  injunction)”). 
The  court  held  that  § 441b  was  facially  constitutional  under 
McConnell,  and  that  § 441b  was  constitutional  as  applied  to 
Hillary  because  it  was  “susceptible  of  no  other  interpreta­
tion  than  to  inform  the  electorate  that  Senator  Clinton  is 
unﬁt for ofﬁce, that the United States would be a dangerous 
place in a President Hillary Clinton world, and that viewers 
should  vote  against  her.”  530  F.  Supp.  2d,  at  279.  The 
court  also  rejected  Citizens  United’s  challenge  to  BCRA’s 
disclaimer  and  disclosure  requirements.  It  noted  that  “the 
Supreme Court has written approvingly of disclosure provi­
sions  triggered  by  political  speech  even  though  the  speech 
itself was constitutionally protected under the First Amend­
ment.”  Id., at 281. 

We  noted  probable  jurisdiction.  555  U. S.  1028  (2008). 
The  case  was  reargued  in  this  Court  after  the  Court  asked 
the  parties  to  ﬁle  supplemental  briefs  addressing  whether 
we  should  overrule  either  or  both  Austin  and  the  part  of 
McConnell  which  addresses  the  facial  validity  of  2  U. S. C. 
§ 441b.  See 557 U. S. 932 (2009). 

II 

Before  considering  whether  Austin  should  be  overruled, 
we ﬁrst  address whether Citizens United’s  claim that § 441b 
cannot be applied to Hillary may be resolved on other, nar­
rower grounds. 

A 

Citizens  United  contends  that  § 441b  does  not  cover  Hil­
lary, as a matter of statutory interpretation, because the ﬁlm