Source: https://www.criminallawlibraryblog.com/findlaw_case_summaries_constit_30/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 22:32:53+00:00

Document:
U.S. Supreme Court, January 21, 2010 Citizens United v. FEC, No. 08–205 The Court rules that the government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether. Specifically, in an action brought by a nonprofit corporation, the makers of a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy, challenging the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that was an “electioneering communication” or for speech that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate, a denial of a preliminary injunction for plaintiff is reversed in part where Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), is overruled, and thus provides no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures. Hence, the part of McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U.S. 93 (2007), that upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act sect! ion 203’s extension of section 441b’s restrictions on independent corporate expenditures is also overruled. However, the order is affirmed in part where BCRA sections 201 and 311 were valid as applied to the ads for the documentary and to the movie itself because disclaimer and disclosure requirements may burden the ability to speak, but they imposed no ceiling on campaign-related activities, or prevented anyone from speaking. .
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 20, 2010 Fox v. Vice, No. 08-31135 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action based on a blackmail letter sent to plaintiff by a rival candidate for the office of police chief, a grant of defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees based on the dismissal of plaintiff’s federal claims is affirmed where: 1) defendants were prevailing parties despite plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of his federal claims because the case had proceeded through substantial discovery before defendants’ motion to dismiss those claims; and 2) plaintiff’s claims were frivolous because it was clear from the face of the complaint that the letter was not sent under color of law. .
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 22, 2010 Libertarian Party v. Dardenne, No. 09-30307 In an action seeking to declare unconstitutional the Louisiana Secretary of State’s deadline for submitting qualifying papers entitling candidates to be on the ballot for the 2008 presidential election, dismissal of the complaint as moot is affirmed where plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable expectation that the Secretary would again unilaterally change filing deadlines in the future.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 21, 2010 Ray v. Boatwright, No. 08-2825 Denial of defendant’s petition for habeas relief is reversed and remanded where: 1) the detective testifying to the co-actors’ statements violated defendant’s right of confrontation; 2) the statements were inadmissible under Roberts as they neither fell within a firmly rooted hearsay exception nor did they contain particularized guarantees of trustworthiness; 3) the error in admitting statements by the nontestifying co-actors was plain and defendant’s substantial rights were affected; and 4) defendant’s petition is determined to be timely.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.