Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 569

408  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

(1976)  (per  curiam),  and  that  was  afﬁrmed  and  expanded 
just two Terms ago in WRTL, 551 U. S. 449. 

This  brief  tour  of  alternative  grounds  on  which  the  case 
could  have  been  decided  is  not  meant  to  show  that  any  of 
these grounds is ideal, though each is perfectly “valid,” ante, 
at  329  (majority  opinion).16  It  is  meant  to  show  that  there 
were principled,  narrower paths that  a Court that  was seri­
ous  about  judicial  restraint  could  have  taken.  There  was 
also  the  straightforward  path:  applying  Austin  and  McCon­
nell, just as the District Court did in holding that the funding 
of Citizens United’s ﬁlm can be regulated under them.  The 
only  thing  preventing  the  majority  from  afﬁrming  the  Dis­
trict Court, or adopting a narrower ground that would retain 
Austin, is its disdain for Austin. 

II 

The ﬁnal principle of judicial process that the majority vio­
lates is the most transparent: stare decisis.  I am not an ab­
solutist  when  it  comes  to  stare  decisis,  in  the  campaign  ﬁ­
nance area or in any other.  No one is.  But if this principle 
is  to  do  any  meaningful  work  in  supporting  the  rule  of  law, 
it must at least demand a signiﬁcant justiﬁcation, beyond the 
preferences of ﬁve Justices, for overturning settled doctrine. 
“[A]  decision  to  overrule  should  rest  on  some  special  reason 

16 The  Chief  Justice  ﬁnds  our  discussion  of  these  narrower  solutions 
“quite perplexing” because we suggest that the Court should “latch on to 
one  of  them  in  order  to  avoid  reaching  the  broader  constitutional  ques­
tion,” without doing the same ourselves.  Ante, at 375.  There is nothing 
perplexing about the matter, because we are not similarly situated to our 
colleagues  in  the  majority.  We  do  not  share  their  view  of  the  First 
Amendment.  Our reading of the Constitution would not lead us to strike 
down any statutes or overturn any precedents in this case, and we there­
fore  have  no  occasion  to  practice  constitutional  avoidance  or  to  vindicate 
Citizens  United’s  as-applied  challenge.  Each  of  the  arguments  made 
above  is  surely  at  least  as  strong  as  the  statutory  argument  the  Court 
accepted in last year’s Voting Rights Act case, Northwest Austin Munici­
pal Util. Dist. No. One v.  Holder, 557 U. S. 193 (2009).