SC case studies Flashcards
Give two cases where the SC ruled along partisan lines
- Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission (2010)
- Burwell vs Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc (2014)
What was the SC asked to review in citizens united vs federal election commission?
The constitutionality of certain parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
What was the act created to do?
Regulate the financing of political campaigns, including restrictions on corporate and union spending on political advertising
What two issues was the act designed to tackle?
- The increased role of soft money
- The proliferation of issue advocacy ads
Define soft money
This is the financing of election campaigns through donations by individuals and corporations
What are issue advocacy ads?
Communications intended to raise awareness to a certain problem, often sponsored by special interest groups
How did the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act tackle the growth of soft money?
By stopping national political party committees from raising or spending money not subject to federal limits
How did the act tackle issue advocacy ads?
By defining broadcast ads that name federal candidates within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a GE as electioneering communications, and prohibiting any such paid ad by a corporation or paid for by an unincorporated agency using any corporate or union general treasury funds
What was the court’s decision in Citizens united vs federal election commission?
It was 5-4 in favour of citizens united, a conservative nonprofit organisation, that held that restrictions on corporate and union spending on political advertisements as violating the 1st amendment right to free speech
What did the five justices in the majority argue in their opinion?
That political spending by unions and corporations should be considered a form of protected speech and the government should not be able to restrict their ability to spend money on election campaigns
What did the 4 dissenting justices argue?
That the restrictions were necessary to prevent the undue influence of large corporations and unions in the political process. They argued that the majority decision would open the door to excessive election spending from unions and corporations, potentially distorting the democratic process
Why is citizens united v federal election commission seen as an example of a partisan SC ruling?
Because the ruling saw the five justices appointed by Republican presidents align with conservative jurisprudence, while the dissenting 4, all appointed by Democratic presidents, all adhered to a more liberal interpretation of campaign finance laws. The five Republican justices voted in favour of a big conservative organisation, while the four Democratic justices voted in against big conservative corporations like Citizens United using donations to influence electoral outcomes
What was the SC asked to determine in Burwell vs Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc (2014)?
whether closely held for-profit corporations, such as Hobby Lobby, could be exempted from providing certain forms of contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds
Who did the court rule in favour of?
The court ruled in favour of Hobby Lobby by a 5-4 split
How did the court justify their decision to rule in favour of Hobby Lobby?
The court ruled that closely held corporations with religious objections could be exempted from the Act’s requirement to provide contraceptive coverage to employees. The decision was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993), saying that they could be exempt if there was a less restrictive way of achieving the act’s ends
What did supporters of the ruling say about the decision?
viewed it as a victory for religious freedom
What do critics of the ruling say about the decision?
that it prioritised the religious beliefs of employers over the healthcare needs and rights of employees.
Why is Burwell vs Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc (2014) and example of a partisan SC ruling?
The five conservative leaning justices voted in the majority and the 4 liberal leaning justices voted in dissent. The alignment of the justices in this case reflected their conservative or liberal leanings, leading to the perception of a partisan divide in the court’s ruling
Give two examples of the SC not ruling along partisan lines
- Brown v Board of Education of Topeka
- US vs Nixon (1974)
What did the SC rule in Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka
his case saw the SC unanimously rule that segregation in schools was unconstitutional. The decision overturned the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine established in Plessy v Ferguson (1896), which had allowed for racial segregation in public facilities as long as they were equal in quality
What did the SC opinion state in Brown?
that ‘separate educational facilities are inherently unequal’ and that racial segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment
What was the importance of the SC ruling in Brown?
The ruling was a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement and led to the desegregation of public schools in the US
How was Brown an example of the SC not ruling along partisan lines?
The unanimous nature of the decision is significant because it involved a significant civil rights issue and had the support of all 9 justices, who were appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents
This landmark case is often cited as an example of the SC’s ability to transcend partisan politics and make decisions based on the principles of justice and equality
Explain the US vs Nixon (1974) case
This saw the SC unanimously rule against US president Nixon, who had refused to release video tapes and recordings related to the Watergate scandal during a criminal investigation. The court’s decision was 8-0, with one justice recusing himself
Recusing is where a judge steps down from hearing a case, on the basis that it is not appropriate for them to deal with it
The court held that the president’s claim of executive privilege, which he argued would protect the confidentiality of his conversations, did not outweigh the need for evidence in a criminal investigation
The ruling effectively forced Nixon to release the subpoenaed materials, including the famous ‘Watergate tapes’, which contained incriminating evidence
