Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 557.0

396  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

I concur in the Court’s decision to sustain BCRA’s disclosure 
provisions  and  join  Part  IV  of  its  opinion,  I  emphatically 
dissent from its principal holding. 

I 

The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of 
elected  institutions  across  the  Nation.  The  path  it  has 
taken  to  reach  its  outcome  will,  I  fear,  do  damage  to  this 
institution.  Before turning to the question whether to over­
rule Austin and part of McConnell, it is important to explain 
why the Court should not be deciding that question. 

Scope of the Case 

The  ﬁrst  reason  is  that  the  question  was  not  properly 
brought  before  us.  In  declaring  § 203  of  BCRA  facially  un­
constitutional  on  the  ground  that  corporations’  electoral  ex­
penditures  may  not  be  regulated  any  more  stringently  than 
those of individuals, the majority decides this case on a basis 
relinquished  below,  not  included  in  the  questions  presented 
to  us  by  the  litigants,  and  argued  here  only  in  response  to 
the  Court’s  invitation.  This  procedure is  unusual  and  inad­
visable for a court.2  Our colleagues’ suggestion that “we are 
asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell,” ante, 
at 319, would be more accurate if rephrased to state that “we 
have asked ourselves” to reconsider those cases. 

In the District Court, Citizens United initially raised a fa­
cial  challenge  to  the  constitutionality  of  § 203.  App.  23a– 

2 See  Yee  v.  Escondido,  503  U. S.  519,  535  (1992)  (“[U]nder  this  Court’s 
Rule 14.1(a), only the questions set forth in the petition, or fairly included 
therein,  will  be  considered  by  the  Court”  (internal  quotation  marks  and 
alteration omitted)); Wood v. Allen, ante, at 304 (“[T]he fact that petitioner 
discussed [an] issue in the text of his petition for certiorari does not bring 
it  before  us.  Rule  14.1(a)  requires  that  a  subsidiary  question  be  fairly 
included  in  the  question  presented  for  our  review”  (internal  quotation 
marks  and brackets  omitted)); Cooper  Industries, Inc.  v.  Aviall  Services, 
Inc., 543 U. S. 157, 168–169 (2004) (“We ordinarily do not decide in the ﬁrst 
instance issues not decided below” (internal quotation marks omitted)).