Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 534

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

373 

Roberts, C. J., concurring 

posters,  the  Internet,  and  virtually  any  other  medium  that 
corporations and unions might ﬁnd useful in expressing their 
views on matters of public concern.  Its theory, if accepted, 
would  empower  the  Government  to  prohibit  newspapers 
from  running  editorials  or  opinion  pieces  supporting  or  op­
posing candidates for ofﬁce, so long as the newspapers were 
owned by corporations—as the major ones are.  First 
Amendment rights could be conﬁned to individuals, subvert­
ing  the  vibrant  public  discourse  that  is  at  the  foundation  of 
our democracy. 

The Court properly rejects that theory, and I join its opin­
ion  in  full.  The  First  Amendment  protects  more  than  just 
the  individual  on  a  soapbox  and  the  lonely  pamphleteer.  I 
write separately to address the important principles of judi­
cial restraint and stare decisis implicated in this case. 

I 

Judging the constitutionality of an Act of Congress is “the 
gravest and most delicate duty that this Court is called on to 
perform.”  Blodgett v.  Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 147–148 (1927) 
(Holmes,  J.,  concurring).  Because  the  stakes  are  so  high, 
our standard practice is to refrain from addressing constitu­
tional questions except when necessary to rule on particular 
claims  before  us.  See  Ashwander  v.  TVA,  297  U. S.  288, 
346–348 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).  This policy under­
lies  both  our  willingness  to  construe  ambiguous  statutes  to 
avoid constitutional problems and our practice “ ‘never to for­
mulate  a  rule  of  constitutional  law  broader  than  is  required 
by  the  precise  facts  to  which  it  is  to  be  applied.’ ”  United 
States  v.  Raines,  362  U. S.  17,  21  (1960)  (quoting  Liverpool, 
New York & Philadelphia S. S. Co. v.  Commissioners of Em­
igration, 113 U. S. 33, 39 (1885)). 

The  majority  and  dissent  are  united  in  expressing  alle­
giance  to  these  principles.  Ante,  at  329;  post,  at  405–406 
(Stevens,  J.,  concurring  in  part  and  dissenting  in  part).