Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 558.0

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

397 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

24a.  In  its  motion  for  summary  judgment,  however,  Citi­
zens  United  expressly  abandoned  its  facial  challenge,  1:07– 
cv–2240–RCL–RWR,  Docket  Entry  No.  52,  pp.  1–2  (May 
16,  2008),  and  the  parties  stipulated  to  the  dismissal  of  that 
claim, id., Nos. 53 (May 22, 2008), 54 (May 23, 2008), App. 6a. 
The District Court therefore resolved the case on alternative 
grounds,3  and  in  its  jurisdictional  statement  to  this  Court, 
Citizens United properly advised us that it was raising only 
“an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of . . . BCRA 
§ 203.”  Juris.  Statement  5.  The  jurisdictional  statement 
never  so  much  as  cited  Austin,  the  key  case  the  majority 
today  overrules.  And  not  one  of  the  questions  presented 
suggested  that  Citizens  United  was  surreptitiously  raising 
the facial challenge to § 203 that  it previously agreed to dis­
miss.  In  fact,  not  one  of  those  questions  raised  an  issue 
based  on  Citizens  United’s  corporate  status.  Juris.  State­
ment  (i).  Moreover,  even  in  its  merits  brieﬁng,  when  Citi­
zens United injected its request to overrule Austin, it never 
sought  a  declaration  that  § 203  was  facially  unconstitutional 
as to all corporations and unions; instead it argued only that 
the statute could not be applied to it because it was “funded 
overwhelmingly by individuals.”  Brief for Appellant 29; see 
also  id.,  at  10,  12,  16,  28  (afﬁrming  “as  applied”  character  of 
challenge to § 203); Tr. of Oral Arg. 4–9 (Mar. 24, 2009) (coun­

3 The  majority  states  that,  in  denying  Citizens  United’s  motion  for  a 
preliminary  injunction,  the  District  Court  “addressed”  the  facial  validity 
of BCRA § 203.  Ante, at 330.  That is true, in the narrow sense that the 
court  observed  the  issue  was  foreclosed  by  McConnell  v.  FEC,  540  U. S. 
93 (2003).  See 530 F. Supp. 2d 274, 278 (DC 2008) (per curiam).  Yet  as 
explained  above,  Citizens  United  subsequently  dismissed  its  facial  chal­
lenge, so that by the time the District Court granted the Federal Election 
Commission’s  (FEC) motion  for summary  judgment,  App. 261a–262a,  any 
question about statutory validity had dropped out of the case.  That latter 
ruling  by  the  District  Court  was  the  “ﬁnal  decision”  from  which  Citizens 
United  appealed  to  this  Court  under  BCRA  § 403(a)(3).  As  regards  the 
lower court decision that has come before us, the claim that § 203 is facially 
unconstitutional was neither pressed nor passed upon in any form.