Today in Supreme Court History: January 21, 2010

1/21/2010: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (decided January 21, 2010): Court disallows on First Amendment grounds any restrictions on use of general corporate or union funds to advocate or denigrate political candidates, explicitly overruling McConnell v. FEC, 2003, and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 1990, except for requiring identification of who is putting out the ads and disclaiming that it represents the views of the broadcaster (in effect, eviscerating the McCain-Feingold Act)

Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (decided January 21, 1974): failure to provide English language instruction to first-generation Chinese students violates Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it excludes them from participation in program receiving government assistance (overruled to the extent that nonintentional discrimination is no longer actionable under that statute, see discussion in Alexander v. Sandoval, 2001)

Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean, 574 U.S. 383 (decided January 21, 2015): air marshal was protected by whistleblower statute from termination because his disclosure to reporter of what he believed to be a dangerous cancellation of air marshal assignments during terrorist alert (supposedly to save money) was not within the whistleblower exception for "disclosures specifically prohibited by law"

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (decided January 21, 2009): no warrant needed for police entry into home because defendant had already agreed to let in the informant to whom he then sold drugs (of course he didn't know it was an informant); this is called the "consent-once-removed" doctrine, already accepted (does this sound right to you?), and therefore entry not in violation of "clearly established law"; therefore, police officers entitled to qualified immunity (unanimous decision)

United States v. Jimenez Recio, 537 U.S. 270 (decided January 21, 2003): can be charged with conspiracy even if joined conspiracy after it had been defeated (agreed to come pick up truck even though police had already seized drugs from it and set up sting with presumably coerced help of original truck driver)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why didn't they leave the drugs in the truck -- and then arrest him in said truck 'o' drugs?

[Dan Schiavetta]

They probably should have. It would have left the defendant with one less argument (the conspiracy was still "ongoing", had not yet been defeated).